Stephen Harper has done a good job of confusing some Canadians about our constitution and system of governance.

While I think that Stephen Harper may have done a fine job of imposing an extra-constitutional framework on the manner in which Government is conducted in Canada, I don’t think that the concept of an announced coalition forming government shortly after an election is being articulated as unconstitutional, rather as illegitimate. There is, assuredly, a difference between the two concepts.

remember parouging parliament in order to avoid the notion of a Liberal/NDP coalition? ?

Yes. This is not inconsistent with our system of government. Nevertheless, some hold the view that it was an illegitimate act for the Prime Minister to request the prorogation of Parliament.

Somehow along the line he seemed to want to deligitimize the notion that Parliament provides a government with the authority to govern ...not the electorate directly.

He is definitely attempting to present the position that Parliament may not topple a government and form a new government without an election. This is not an appeal to the written Constitution or Constitutional tradition, but is perhaps an attempt to forge a new tradition for parliamentary protocol.
I’m not sure what’s so wrong with the idea. Any government, coalition or otherwise, should be willing to stand before the people of Canada, present their views and receive their mandate from the electorate.

The notion that any party that can find the support of sufficient members within the house has the authority to govern shouldn't be presented as strange or foreign to our way of governance.

Ah, here I agree with you. If the intention is to present the way in which Parliament can work, then the party (or group of parties) with sufficient support in the House, shouldn’t (as you said) be presented as strange or foreign. Similarly, it should be presented that the leader of the party gaining the most seats in the House (even in majority situations) needn’t be appointed Prime Minister. The intention of Stephen Harper isn’t to explore Parliamentary Permutations. It is to create the conditions wherein the Conservative Party can be given a majority government.

You are too young to remember that the most effective governments we've had in Canada have been minority governments.

I’m not going to debate the efficacy of minority governments. As you say, I haven’t been living long enough to experience many minority governments. I’m not sure whether or not you count the current minority government amongst the most effective governments in Canada’s history.

End of the Bloc Quebecois

The other thing is the end of the Bloc.... probably a final nail in the coffin of the separatistes.

I’m sceptical of pronouncing the death of the Bloc Quebecois. The party, with sovereignty as its driving force, is not necessarily limited to the topic of Quebec separatism. Even with the waning popularity of separatism amongst the younger generations in Quebec (this is just what I hear circulating. I haven’t had the chance to read scholarly articles exploring the subject) the Bloc has still been viewed as a protector of Quebec’s interests. I’m not sure if this strong notion of a provincial identity will be erased even if the idea of separatism fades from the political scene.

Moreover, the popularity of the NDP may not sound the death knell for the Bloc Quebecois. Last election the Conservatives polled ahead of the Bloc in Quebec but were soon reduced to polling behind the Liberals. That is not to say that the NDP will suffer the same fate (which can be attributed, in part, to misguided statements on the part of Mr.Harper.). However, it does suggest that the population of Quebec—as a cohesive unit—can change its opinion in waves. Bearing that in mind, we remain unsure what is the cause of the popularity of the NDP in Quebec. Is it the social values of the party platform, the personal appeal of Mr. Layton? A combination of these and other factors?

Perhaps the people of Quebec just want to give another party a try. I’m not sure if we can conclude so early that the Bloc is finished. They’ll lose seats this election, but that doesn’t necessarily spell their destruction.

From all of the above in general and these in particular...

...with a majority, you essentially have an enfranchised dictator. In our system of governance, we have no where near the checks and balances of the US, or even the UK. Occassionally that leads to governing parties that exceed their mandate (Harris in Ontario) and effect changes that are too severe for the public appetite, or become corrupted through the lack of a decent opposition. (Chretien)

The notion that any party that can find the support of sufficient members within the house has the authority to govern shouldn't be presented as strange or foreign to our way of governance. ...the most effective governments we've had in Canada have been minority governments.

Harper has promised to bring in exactly the same budget that was defeated to cause th4e election. If he has the same or fewer seats in the new house, that would seem to be rather confrontational and counter productive. So if he proceeds and is defeated who isn't "cooperating?"

remember that the Tories are currently between 35% and 40% in the polls. Despite the fact that that they may win plurality of the seats, they are opossed by almost 60% of the electorate.

Based on this possible outcome... ...

Con 131
NDP 92
Lib 63
BQ 21
Ind 1

which has been derived from recent polls

...my interest has been piqued as my confusion has been multiplied. Please consider me a complete ignoramus when it comes to everything Canadian except the bacon. (Actually, I've visited four times, but one visit was from 2AM to 7AM only. Didn't learn much about politics.) And don't think I'm being critical - I'm just curious.

Four questions I wish to ask:
1) Amongst all the permutations and possibilities you guys discussed, I don't think anyone ever looked at what has in fact come down: a conservative majority. You are all left of center, are you not? It's natural to discount possibilities you'd least like to see. Is that the explanation or was the result simply that far outside the realm of expectations? If the latter: why?

2) Why were the polls off by so much? Not enough money to run large ones? Electorate too fickle? Last-minute developments?

3) Over the years at Redscape I've read many criticisms of the USA's two-party system, and many comparative appreciations of parliamentarism. I'm not against the rise of additional parties in the USA but I think the advantages of having just two are easy to overlook. As best I can tell, y'all now have an "enfranchised dictator" against whom 60% of your electorate voted. The Conservatives will get their program passed with a minimum of checks/balances. Had the non-conservative parties united (forming a USA-like two-party system) the situation would be almost precisely the opposite, but with a majority of voters actually having their wishes translated into results. The Canadian Constitution seems awfully non-democratic here. Am I right? Other than the fact that it's not your preferred party that won -- overlooking that fact if you can -- are y'all disturbed by this? Would you be happy seeing your preferred party have 80% of the power with only 40% of the vote?

4) I lied about the bacon. How is it made? Can I get any of the authentic stuff in Albuquerque?

and what I learned, Businesses are excited by this outcome. It would seem to me you would WANT a happy business environment, especially in these economic times. If we in the US had a similar situation this would be no contest. Yes we have some activists and such but if we can have better economic times, Democrat or Republican, that party is going to win.

MX,
yes you can get Canadian Bacon in Albuquerque,
It's called HAM

3) Over the years at Redscape I've read many criticisms of the USA's two-party system, and many comparative appreciations of parliamentarism. I'm not against the rise of additional parties in the USA but I think the advantages of having just two are easy to overlook. As best I can tell, y'all now have an "enfranchised dictator" against whom 60% of your electorate voted. The Conservatives will get their program passed with a minimum of checks/balances. Had the non-conservative parties united (forming a USA-like two-party system) the situation would be almost precisely the opposite, but with a majority of voters actually having their wishes translated into results. The Canadian Constitution seems awfully non-democratic here. Am I right? Other than the fact that it's not your preferred party that won -- overlooking that fact if you can -- are y'all disturbed by this? Would you be happy seeing your preferred party have 80% of the power with only 40% of the vote?

It's impossible to say what would have happened if there were only two parties, but I'd be very surprised if the split of the vote remained the same. Just because two parties share the distinction of not being the Conservatives it doesn't necessarily follow that they can easily be classified as 'non-Conservative' and treated as a unified anti-Conservative bloc.

But setting that aside, you are of course correct to point out that FPTP within a parliamentary multi-party system tends to result in a disproportionate distribution of power. However, it also allows things to get done. Within the American system gridlock would seem to be the norm rather than the exception. This does have its advantages but personally I prefer a system which delivers stable parliamentary majorities as the norm, even if that does mean that supporters of minor parties tend to be marginalised.

Minister X wrote:Four questions I wish to ask:
1) Amongst all the permutations and possibilities you guys discussed, I don't think anyone ever looked at what has in fact come down: a conservative majority. You are all left of center, are you not? It's natural to discount possibilities you'd least like to see. Is that the explanation or was the result simply that far outside the realm of expectations? If the latter: why?

I hadn't discounted it, but it is far less interesting to discuss. A majority government of a single party, the one that had already had power for the past few years, looks to me like 'more of the same' - and so is not very interesting. The prospect of a party coming from third place in national voting (and fourth in the number of seats) to being

2) Why were the polls off by so much? Not enough money to run large ones? Electorate too fickle? Last-minute developments?

The main variations (between the vote and late polls) seemed to be that the Tories were about 2% higher, the Liberals a couple of percent lower. The other parties were about right in terms of the national polls. The thing is that what was hard to predict was how the large swing from BQ & Liberal to NDP would break in each riding. In some it served to split the anti-Tory vote, and in others it merely switched the seat from one non-Tory party to another.

There's also the other following factors that may have influenced voters between the end of last week and Monday:

1) The Royal Wedding, which will have given nostalgics and royalists a boost and contributed to a measure of good feeling over the weekend
2) The breaking news of the death of OBL would have had a small impact, but would tend to vindicate Harper's position on the War on Terror
3) The last minute campaigning included some attacks on the NDP that may have hit home and caused more people to come out to vote Tory to stop the prospect of a Layton-led government

There's of course the notion of 'shy-Tories', people who don't say they'll vote Conservative but will, the fact that polls themselves alter the voting intentions of people, and possible effects of a low turnout (probably hitting the Liberals and Bloc more as they saw defeat coming). Then there was the leaking of initial results from the Atlantic provinces.

3) Over the years at Redscape I've read many criticisms of the USA's two-party system, and many comparative appreciations of parliamentarism. I'm not against the rise of additional parties in the USA but I think the advantages of having just two are easy to overlook. As best I can tell, y'all now have an "enfranchised dictator" against whom 60% of your electorate voted. The Conservatives will get their program passed with a minimum of checks/balances. Had the non-conservative parties united (forming a USA-like two-party system) the situation would be almost precisely the opposite, but with a majority of voters actually having their wishes translated into results.

Possibly, but there are reasons why the non-Conservative parties would find it hard to unite. They had a majority of seats before, and so could have shared power simply by use of an early vote of no confidence. However, that would have meant the Quebec separatists participating or at least propping up a federal government (which would run counter to their propaganda as much as their aims), as well as relying on the NDP and the Liberals working together when they've been sharp rivals in several provinces.

You are right that having two big-tent parties can be advantageous.

The Canadian Constitution seems awfully non-democratic here. Am I right? Other than the fact that it's not your preferred party that won -- overlooking that fact if you can -- are y'all disturbed by this? Would you be happy seeing your preferred party have 80% of the power with only 40% of the vote?

Eh? The electoral system is the same as the US one, and so is no more or less democratic (mind you, the upper house is not elected, so that is less democratic). The Canadian system was pretty much 2-party for much of the last 100 years, and it's only recently that the Bloc emerged, or that the NDP were more than a regional force. The FPTP system is certainly something that inhibits small national parties (and rewards regional parties and large national ones), and in the US has combined with self-serving laws to entrench the two-party system. Which means that people who would like to vote for another party face the choice of a lesser of two evils (or the 'evil of two lessers').

The problem is that you conflate the 'Constitution' with the 'political makeup' of the two countries. If the use of FPTP is undemocratic in Canada, it's undemocratic in the USA (and it can be, as we saw in 2000 when the Presidential candidate with fewer votes won more electoral college places), and for the same reasons. The 'fix' of the centre-left parties uniting is not a constitutional change, but a political one. Changing the voting system to something more democratic, such as STV or AMS (Single Transferable Vote and Additional Member Systems) would be.

Now, you have the 'checks and balances' of two chambers and a strong judiciary, where Canada (and the UK) have appointed upper houses, a supposedly unbiased and constitutional weak Monarch/Governor General, and an establishment judiciary, and those differences mean that one single election can't easily give all power to one party and that party won't have total control of the country, but is it democratic for the US to take so long to reflect popular will?

4) I lied about the bacon. How is it made? Can I get any of the authentic stuff in Albuquerque?

I've no idea about what Canadian bacon is. I hope it's nicer than US bacon (typically fried to a total crisp and over-sweetened). Is it like Danish bacon (mmmmmm)?

1) Amongst all the permutations and possibilities you guys discussed, I don't think anyone ever looked at what has in fact come down: a conservative majority. You are all left of center, are you not? It's natural to discount possibilities you'd least like to see. Is that the explanation or was the result simply that far outside the realm of expectations? If the latter: why?

Although the texts quoted in MX’s original post were not posted by me, perhaps I should provide an answer to the questions raised.

To clarify, I wouldn’t identify myself as left of centre. In fact, a Conservative majority is the prospect I would have most likely to see. The opinion polls which we referenced during the discussion, to an extent, had understated the popular support of the Conservatives. I don’t think a Conservative majority as we now have is far outside the realm of expectation.

2) Why were the polls off by so much? Not enough money to run large ones? Electorate too fickle? Last-minute developments?

I don’t think it was a lack of funding or poor statistical methods that led the polls to be off the mark. The polls were, for the most part, conducted by reputable companies. I’m not familiar with the manner in which some of the polls are conducted. Quickly reviewing the results of some of the polls (without going into their methodology) it seems that some have not mentioned the undecided voters. Perhaps these polls were conducted amongst people who were sure of their vote choice. Maybe, just maybe, it was the undecided voters who contributed to the approximately 5% increase in the popular vote for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Would you be happy seeing your preferred party have 80% of the power with only 40% of the vote?

Electoral reform. One of my favourite topics. I always write what I think the professor wants to hear. (FPTP, STV, MMP...if it gets me the marks then I support it.)

Mr. Ignatieff has resigned as leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr.Ignatieff wrote:People ask whether the Liberal Party has a future. I think the surest guarantee of the future of the Liberal Party of Canada is four years of Conservative government and four years of NDP opposition.

So, what is the future of the Liberal Party of Canada?

In Canada you have a precedent for this kind of thing, the complete collapse of the Conservatives in the early 90s. They ultimately managed to survive and rebuild and you'd have to expect the Liberals can do the same in the long term. Dynastic ruling parties don't collapse very easily.

So I watched the election results in a hotel room in Northern Ontario. And being a right wing Liberal I was naturally disappointed. Being a fan of minority governance I quiver at the history of Conservative majority governments. Mulroney Federally and Harris in Ontario... One out of control on spending and the other out of control on cutting. (eroding services and infrastructure that ultimately cost more to eventually repair). Harper was okay as long as there was a threat of loss of power, and benefited from 70 years of superior financial industry regulation and 15 years of Paul Martin fiscal policy. But he didn't screw it up, so he gets credit for that I guess.
Left to his devices uncontrolled I expect he'll build too expensive jets, and lots of jails we don't need and bring in a law and order agenda and yet get rid of the long gun registry over the advice of 97% of the police chiefs in Canada...
To X
1&2) The polls probably missed a late 2 point shift from Liberal to PC in Ontario, combined with a shift from Liberal to NDP in Ontario. That's where the Tories got their majority. Because of First past the post, as little as 38% of the vote can, if arranged correctly, get you a majority. The polls also didn't anticipate how the surge in Quebec by the NDP would be entirely at the expense of the Bloc....
But they weren't bad. The problem with polling is that its mostly national and that FPTP results are hard to discern 100% from national numbers. There are a lot of ridings where the Tory win was by only a percentage point or 3.
3) For years, the conservative vote was split between the Progressive conservatives and the Right Wing reform,. That guaranteed many "Chrétien Majorities" where Liberals got 39% of the vote and 180 seats. Harper and Peter McKay amalgamated the PC's and Reform (Alliance) and made the Conservatives. They can now have 60% of the votes go against them now and get a majority.
In the 60's we had four parties (Social Credit, and Progressive Conservatives on the right and centre right, and Liberal in the centre to left and NDP on the left) . It pretty much guaranteed minority government. But it also meant that cooperation and parliamentary skill was highly valued. Others here may disagree but generally when a Canadian politician uses majorities with too heavy a hand, there's usually hell to pay in the next election.
Right now Liberals like Warren Kinsella are suggesting a "Liberal Democratic" merger should occur. Chrétien said this 2 years ago. Even Bob Rae, a former NDP premiere, now a liberal, and a winner on Monday, is suggesting maybe... It tends to makes sense if you figure that the Liberals who stuck with the party on Monday aren't likely to migrate right (20%).... And the NDP members will never vote Tory. (30%) And the Greens 4% aren't going anywhere.
The only question is Quebec. The Bloc 5% but all concentrated in Quebec where they were about 25%. Quebec is generally the most left of Canadian provinces, so politically the NDP makes sense to them.
If you compare the platforms, there's not a lot of difference. Liberals do have a stronger reputation for fiscal responsibility. For the NDP who have only governed Provincially and had some fails there, (Ontario) the ability to gain some of that Reputation would be good. It might help attract left wing Tories. (The kind of creature, now rare, that Americans might call Rockefeller Republicans.)
4) regarding my comment about Canadian majority governments being unfettered. First, the Senate is appointed, and there is now a Tory majority in the Senate. (Harper had long campaigned on reforming Senate to make it elected , until he got into power), The ability of the PM to control the agenda, the course of legislature, the various agencies and more is pretty much executive in scope. Imagine a US President who also controls every step of congress, and doesn't have to compromise on any piece of legislation as long as his members all vote. And party discipline with most is 100%. Becasue if you piss off the PMO, you lose. See Helen Geugis. Out of the cabinet, caucus and party based on her philandering hubbie and some bad behaviour and unsubstantiated rumour..Not that she didn't have it coming. But a quieter more obediant Politician the PM protects. (See Bev Oda, who survived being caught lieing to Parliament. Which generally means a forced resignation in the past.) Essentially, through his powers of appointment, the cabinet and caucus, his will is unassailable. All that really balances this Federally is Question Period. The effective use of Question Period can be a good weapon. But, if the PM is hell bent really is an annoyance and not a check.
Accordingly, over time, the Provincial governments have taken up the position of opposing the PM's will. The West versus Trudeau over energy. Quebec versus ..well everybody over separation of powers in the constitution. Even comparing Canada to the UK, Danivon, Jeffery Simpson in "The Benevolent Dictator" demonstrated how British PMs have far less control over the political agenda and levers of power than a majority PM in Canada.
People talk about changing this...till they become PM. To quote Mel Brooks in the History of the World "Its Good to be King".

I thank all of you for your thoughtful responses. I'm a little less ignorant and confused (but only a little - one advantage of the two-party system: easier to keep track of the players!).

I'm skeptical that four years of a Conservative majority will be enough to push the two left-centre parties together. Eight years on the other hand...

And then we'll likely be looking at what is effectively a two-party system. It's just that our party of the right will only be slightly to the right of the Democrats and our party of the left will look a little closer to a European left-wing party. Dennis Kucinich should start looking for a radio job in Toronto. He can start working his way back up from city council after that.

Heck Tate wrote:I'm skeptical that four years of a Conservative majority will be enough to push the two left-centre parties together. Eight years on the other hand...

Indeed, I’m not sure if the Liberal Party of Canada fits all that comfortably on the left of the political spectrum. A merger between the Liberals and NDP, especially given the current configuration of the House, would prioritize the left-of-centre wing of the party, possibly at the expense of the right-leaning Liberals.

Nevertheless, in this election there were various news reports regarding the similarity between the Liberal and NDP platforms. Would you say that the Liberals moved to the left with their platform or that the NDP moved closer to the centre?

I don't really think that either platform moved that much, but looking ahead I think that anything is possible, and there may well come to be an identifiable "Independent" group which will be, in part, made up of alienated blue Liberals and red Tories, rather than any organized party that occupies the middle. I'd definitely count myself among that group, just as I would if I were an American.