Canada West Foundation Blog

By: Robbie Rolfe

The results of the Alberta provincial election that took place on April 23, 2012 generated a lot of commentary on the gap between what the polls were saying and what actually happened on election day. While this is an interesting puzzle, it is perhaps more important to look at another gap—namely, the chasm between votes cast and seats won.

There is a large differential between the percentage of the vote some parties received and the percentage of seats they won. The table below shows seat share minus vote share by region. A negative number indicates where a party had a smaller share of seats than votes while a positive number indicates where a party had a larger share of the seats than votes. When it comes to the first and second place parties (the Progressive Conservative and Wildrose parties), the differentials are quite large.



The Wildrose party had strong support across the province. Nevertheless, it came a close second or third in many ridings. To modify the cliché, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, not in the single member plurality races we use to select our representatives in Alberta and across the country. So despite garnering more than a third of the popular vote in the province, the Wildrose party won only a fifth of the seats.

The Progressive Conservative party, on the other hand, won about 23 more seats than it would have if each party had received the same proportion of seats as its proportion of the popular vote. In many cases, the PCs won with a plurality (the most votes) rather than a majority.

Another way to measure the gap between vote share and seat share that typifies single member plurality systems is the least squares index, a common measure of proportionality used in political science. The scale runs from 0 to 100 with higher numbers indicating a less proportional result. This measure allows us to compare proportionality across elections. For the recent Alberta election, its value is about 22. To provide some context, that is a more disproportional result than any Canadian federal election since 1945. (This includes Brian Mulroney’s 1984 victory, where his party won 75% of the seats with 50% of the votes, while the Liberal and New Democratic parties’ seat shares were about half of their popular vote shares.)

Proportionality matters. Arguably, when the distribution of seats in the legislature does not accurately match the preferences of the voters expressed in the general election, it is less likely to pass laws reflecting the diverse preferences of the population. In other words, the single member plurality system we use in Canada tends to distort the representativeness of our legislatures.

To create a better match between votes and seats, we would need to implement some form of proportional representation. In these systems, seats are allocated based on a candidate or party’s share of the popular vote rather than on which candidate comes first in each riding. It may even have other positive effects (for example, it may increase the number of women and ethnic minority representatives in the legislature, two historically underrepresented groups).

Of course, a change of this sort will also have costs. For example, it will likely mean the end of majority government. In order to get a majority in a proportional representation system, one party will have to get very close to half the vote in order to get more than half the seats. This could be costly because majority governments are seen as stable, strong and able to implement their campaign promises. Voters can also identify responsibility easily and hold governments accountable when one party controls the levers of power. It is also easy for the electorate to turn majority governments out in a single member plurality system, as small movements in the popular vote can result in large changes in seats. (Some also argue that majority governments are better for economic performance, though there appears to be no statistically significant link in practice between the electoral system and economic performance. See, for example, Arend Lijphart’s 1999 book, which compares different democratic institutional types.)

Nevertheless, we can discuss and decide on a system that works for us. There are many options we can choose (we can even retain single member districts). We can minimize the costs and maximize the benefits.

We cannot do that, however, without talking about it—it is time to grapple with this elephant in our political living room.
 

by: Robert Roach, Senior Researcher and the Director of The West in Canada Project

Majorities are not evil
Majority governments are the norm in Canada, so it is a bit odd to hear a large number of commentators acting like a Tory majority is some sort of evil aberration out of Tolkien’s Land of Mordor. It is true that the Harper government will be able to pursue its agenda without the restrictions of a minority Parliament, but this is exactly the same as it was for Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien. We are back to business as usual and not—as some seem to think—out on a crazy limb that will break and send the country into freefall.

In addition, majority governments like to win more than one majority. Hence, while they can pursue their vision for the country without constant fear of a non-confidence vote, they tend to keep one eye on the next election cycle. In other words, radical policies that will alienate large chunks of voters remain unappealing regardless of majority status.

Regional fault lines remain
From a regional perspective, the outcome of the election is very interesting. You barely need two hands to count the Conservative seats in Quebec whereas the NDP have become the de facto representatives of Quebec in the House. This is a new dynamic. In some ways, Quebec has become like Alberta in that it has chosen to side with the opposition rather than the government. Not that long ago, it was Alberta MPs who had only a small presence on the government side of the House.

On the bright side, a Harper majority likely means that the federal government will do as much as it can to advance Senate reform (full reform still requires the provinces to get on board). This is good for the country, good for Quebec and good for the West. A properly designed Senate has the potential to ensure that regional representation does not depend on which party forms the government in the House. Maybe, just maybe, Canada will finally start to fix this broken part of our political system. Maybe.

The Rise of the NDP
Given the nature of the Canadian system, the Official Opposition in a majority Parliament is largely irrelevant in terms of policy. They have an important job to do trying to keep the government’s feet over the coals, but they can’t block government legislation. In this sense, it matters little which party forms the opposition. However, the rise of the NDP is important for several reasons: 1) it is the first time in Canadian history that the Liberal party finds itself in the third party position and it remains to be seen if it can recover; 2) the fuzzy mandate that Layton has from Quebec voters will be a factor but it is impossible to say how this will play out; and 3) the ideological differences between the Tories and the NDPs are relatively clear and will present Canadians with a black and white set of alternatives to watch over the next four years.

The West is Still In
This election shows that a party with a leader from the West and a strong base of support in the region can, by also appealing to Ontario voters, form a majority government. Regardless of your political stripes, the Harper government is not a bad thing from a regional perspective. A government with a strong western base will have a natural connection to the region’s needs and unique circumstances. Because they are governing a nation rather than a region, these needs will not always take precedence, but they should be at least understood and given a fair hearing. This does not mean that governments without a strong western base can’t do this, but in reality, it is much more likely when they do.

By: Tom Carson, Director of the Manitoba Office

Manitobans head to the polls on Tuesday, October 4, 2011, and with only 169 days to go it is not surprising that the budget tabled on April 12 seemed designed both to benefit the largest number of interests and to create the least possible controversy.

On the revenue side, no increases are planned for major corporate or personal income taxes and expenditure increases will be sprinkled across many sectors, reaching a very broad public. These increases include the freezing of administrative costs for the regional health authorities and tying tuition increases to the consumer price index (CPI).

However, there was also some disappointment, especially for those who viewed the budget through a lens where the economy and our future spending ability is of preeminent importance. While the minister stated that overall expenditures were expected to rise by 2.3%, year over year, spending on core programs actually rose by 4.89%.

Going into the preparations for this budget, consultations generated a few hot points:

• The Business Council of Manitoba had what seemed to be an unprecedented recommendation; in recognition of the serious impact that Manitoba's infrastructure deficit has on the economy, the leaders of Manitoba's business community actually recommended a 1% increase in the provincial sales tax to be applied for a ten-year period and used only for infrastructure expenditures. This was seen as an opportunity for municipalities to deal with their infrastructure problems with a revenue source that actually grows with the economy.
• The government responded with a commitment to spend the equivalent of one point of the provincial sales tax on municipal infrastructure and public transit. This looks like a bigger commitment than it is. Rather than being incremental to current infrastructure spending, this commitment blends current grants for infrastructure and public transit. While blending both grants identifies a secure and growing source, for the City of Winnipeg it would represent an estimated 9% increase from funds they already receive. Winnipeg will benefit by having this increase funded from a growth stream, whereas previously approximately 50 to 60% was funded in this manner. Over time the value of that growth will become more obvious, however, it is not a substantial investment and will not contribute significantly to correcting the infrastructure deficit.
• Comparatively, Manitoba's universities have been both underfunded and, due to a decade-long tuition freeze which ended in 2009, prevented from using tuition increases as a means to help balance their books. The government has committed to increased grants of 5% over the next three years and has reinstituted a tuition freeze, although this time tying it to growth in the CPI. Although this commitment is not enough to bring them on par with the support received in most other provinces in Canada, it does at least begin to reflect the importance of universities to our provincial economies.
• For those hoping that the budget would reflect a major commitment to cut spending, the tone of the budget speech demonstrates that it was clearly not something the government wished to lead with. The publicly stated commitments to restraint are quite narrow—they are striving to negotiate a 0% increase for the general civil service, freeze discretionary salary and operating expenditures, maintain last year's reduction in ministerial salaries and carry on a freeze on salaries for members of the legislative assembly along with their staff. They will be attempting to freeze salaries for senior management in the regional health authorities and generally seeking ways to foster innovative, cost-effective services. (Government will likely also expect all public-sector employers to seek the same wage freeze—presenting an interesting dilemma for university administrators).
  
  

The question yet to be answered for Manitobans is whether the right policy choices are being made through the current budget. Were there alternatives which could have resulted in balancing the budget more quickly? If these choices were not made in this budget, will it be incumbent on the government formed after October's general election to initiate them?

It might be tempting to say that no government going into an election would choose to add 1% to the sales tax or to introduce themes of restraint and program redesign. However, Saskatchewan is also heading into an election in November of this year, and unlike Manitoba and most other provinces, has already posted a surplus. Both provinces saw greater revenues last year and both spent more than they had budgeted in 2010/11. Saskatchewan's revenues and expenditures have grown significantly more than Manitoba's, but their treatment of the budget challenge in 2011/12 is quite different despite the upcoming elections. While Saskatchewan plans to be spending 5.48% more than their printed estimates of last year, they will be spending 2.45% less than their actual previous year expenditures. And the untouchable—spending in the Department of Health will actually be reduced compared to the previous year.

Now, that would have raised eyebrows amongst those looking for more attention to the bottom line in Manitoba!

Last Friday Prime Minister Harper appointed Salma Ataullahjan to fill the last Senate vacancy. Ms. Ataullahjan is a former Conservative candidate and has pledged to support the Conservative government’s efforts to reform the Senate. Considering the fact that with this appointment, the Conservatives have the same number of voting members in the Upper Chamber as the Liberals and independents combined, the possibility of Senate reform is greater now than ever! But, as the Globe and Mail’s Jeffrey Simpson noted, Senate reform is “a subject that animates a few Canadians and bores the rest.”

This does not mean that the Senate is not an important issue. The Canadian Senate needs reforming— it is undemocratic and, although intended to be a regional balance to the House of Commons, it is not an effective regional voice in Ottawa. Reform has the potential to make the Senate more representative and to improve the functioning of the Canadian political machine.

Yet, as a young(ish) person concerned with issues of public policy—a self proclaimed policy wonk wannabe—even I struggle to care about Senate reform.

Why?

For one, Senate reform is not a “sexy” issue like climate change or animal rights. Therefore, you do not see protestors out scaling the walls of parliament to hang giant banners demanding that the Canadian Senate be reformed.

But it is more than that.

Senate reform does not address the issues that really matter. There are much more pressing issues in Canadian politics, like citizen disillusionment with government and politics. Only 58.8% of eligible Canadians voted in the 2008 federal election. The issue is even more prominent among young Canadians as only 37.4% of this sector of the population voted in the same election! Voter apathy is often attributed to increased identification requirements, people being too busy to vote and even “lazy, incompetent young people.” But, perhaps the most common reason given is that people increasingly just do not care about politics.

However, according to Statistics Canada, the reality is that people (particularly youth), “are interested in political issues,” and “committed to the tenets of democracy,” but they are, “wary of politicians.”  So, what the voting statistics really are is a symptom of Canadian politics lacking: 1) trust in politicians, and 2) long-term vision on the part of our policymakers. What our politicians are selling, Canadians just aren’t buying!

This should not be a surprise. To the first point, the question has been asked in countless polls: whom do you trust? The answer is usually the same. Doctors and nurses tend to come first, the police are near the top, and journalists and politicians rank at the very bottom.

To the second point, we see a government that tends to launch attacks at people rather than policy. Our political leaders seem most concerned about how their actions are going to play out in public opinion polls rather than thinking about how they will impact Canada’s future. They are not rock stars whose job it is to entertain. Politicians should be thinking about what Canada can and should be and what needs to be done to get us there.  They should be thinking about the next five or ten years, not just the next five or ten minutes.

That is what matters. If you want people to care, you need to address the issues that matter. Citizen disillusionment with politicians and the political system is one major issue, one not addressed by the current Senate reform proposals. Again, it is not that the issue of Senate reform does not have merit.  However, tinkering with the mechanics of the Senate when people are increasingly apathetic about democracy is a little bit like a pilot fiddling with his headset when the plane is crashing—it really just misses the point. People do not care— and they won’t—at least not until the bigger fish are fried.

Posted by: Candice Powley