Minority Government (Canada)

[iverglas]

Today's thread -- since the results are actually so different from what they appeared before midnight on Monday, and to clarify the situation.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/29/canada/elxn_wrap040629

Martin, 65, led his Liberals through a storm of resentment over the Quebec sponsorship scandal to take 135 seats out of the 308 available in a newly reconfigured House of Commons.

Although the Liberals won a minority government, they suffered a net loss of 42 seats compared with the 2000 election result.

To pass legislation in the months ahead, Martin will need the assistance of another party – either the left-leaning NDP with its 19 seats or the sovereigntist Bloc Québécois with its 54 MPs.

That sets the stage for a government built on philosophical compromise and day-to-day deal-making rather than a single party's priorities.

Liberals: 135
Conservatives: 99
Bloc Québécois: 54
New Democrats: 19
Independent: 1

(Independent is former Conservative who cannot be expected to be part of a progressive bloc.)

The Liberal and NDP seats combined (especially considering that the non-voting Speaker of the House will normally be drawn from the Liberal caucus) do not a majority make.

This makes the situation different from previous Liberal minority govts. in Canada, when there was a Liberal/NDP voting bloc that ensured passage of legislation favoured by the two parties.

[hermetic]

1. Thank you

for sharing this info. I was wondering what happened and of course our "news" down here said nothing about it, even though I'm just a few miles south of the border. Seems like this outcome should make for some heated debates in the future.

[iverglas]

2. "What next? Government by uncertainty"

From the Toronto Star this morning:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1088460611245&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Even this article is out of date, since it gives the Conservatives 97 seats and the NDP 21, when the final count is 99 and 19 -- so that Martin has NOT been pushed past the "155-seat threshold necessary for majority support in the 308-member Parliament, meaning he can cling to power without having to appease the separatist Bloc".

Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson has already consulted constitutional experts, federal lawyers and public policy advisers on the minority government's particulars.

Last night's results are preliminary and the votes must be validated by next Monday with any judicial recounts completed by July 9, said Elections Canada's Andrea Marantz.

A judicial recount is automatic in any riding where the difference between leading candidates is 0.1 of a percentage point or less, Marantz said yesterday.

I observed the vote count in my home poll in my riding last night. The polls closed at 9:30, I was home by 10:30 -- all the counting of unused and spoiled ballots and reconciling of totals was done, the 199 ballots cast were counted and sealed into separate envelopes for each candidate, the counts were recorded and I was given the official report to submit to my candidate. I passed it off to another guy who was going to the victory party, preferring to go home and watch it all unfold on TV with the news junkie co-vivant.

Yes, victory party -- I'm in a solid NDP riding, lucky me!

"There is a very clear process here: As Prime Minister, Martin has the first opportunity to try to form the government and that means going in front of the House, presumably with a throne speech ... and that speech is either defeated or not," ...

If Martin cannot weather such a vote, Clarkson might then approach Harper and ask him if he feels he can govern.

Parliament is scheduled to reconvene on July 19; Martin has some flexibility, but "convention" is not something easily disregarded.

For anyone wanting to understand how this works, the rest of the Star article is pretty informative - but keep in mind that it was going on an assumption that no longer holds, that the Liberal/NDP bloc made up a majority.

[TrogL]

24. You scrutineered? So did I. Good job

I sent my count in with another scrutineer 'cause they were having trouble with the used ballot count on two polls.

[Lisa]

46. another scrutineer here ...

My first time as an NDP poll captain, so I was worried about what to do with the certification forms -- did anyone else get them for multiple polls? Our E-day coordinator suggested I do this, just to to be able to get the final statement.

The polls opened at 7 here on the West Coast, so it was a long day for me (though I was back at the HQ by 10 PDT, even with the recounts).

Six polls in our station (in the Saanich/Gulf Islands riding). The counts were done within an hour, and only 2 had problems: 2 spoiled ballots in one case that everyone looked at and signed off on; and what appeared to be an extra ballot (when I left, the returning officers were counting the stubs -- a booklet might have been miscollated). In neither case was the outcome of the vote affected.

I phoned in the count to the zone house because the HQ line was busy. Then I picked up the signed forms and caught a ride down to the "moral victory" party (where we cheered on the results from the ridings where the NDP actually did win).

Our candidate did much better than expected, even with the Greens pouring something like $80k into the riding. Best of all, we now know a LOT more about which polls are supporting us (our last complete data set was from the election before last). We are now in good shape for the provincial election or the next federal one, whichever comes first!

It would be nice if one of the BC recounts turned in our favour (taking a riding out of the neo-Con column).


The Liberal poll captain (a very nice woman who just moved out from Ontario) had no lunch, and was sitting there watching us eat. She told us, "my office promised they'd send food but they haven't". I said, "There is irony ... but I won't go there" (federal election law prohibits saying things about the parties in the polling place -- it was a lull and there were no voters anyway). Anyway, the poll clerks, DROs, and the Liberals themselves started laughing. The Conservatives (a high-school kid, and an elderly man who was probably an old-style Tory) offered to share their sandwiches, and I had a package of cookies, and one of the poll clerks had spare fruit drinks. So there was plenty for everybody. When the Liberals' runner arrived later in the afternoon with their sandwiches, they announced (deadpan) "It's all baloney!". More laughter.

I was impressed by the efficiency of the election staff, and the common decency of the reps from the other parties at our polling station. Maybe this is one of the reasons why the powers-that-be arranged our voting system this way. It gives a lot of people a chance to take part and learn how to run an election -- plus they get to see the human side of the other participants. We'd lose that if we went to online voting.

[Spazito]

47. Thanks for the "on-site" report!

I think your comments about the courtesy and decency that was evident in the polling places is an excellent point. It is very true that working together with the "opposition" to ensure that the election is honest and fair is a big plus in our election system, imo! Again, thanks for the excellent report.

Our NDP candidate ALMOST defeated the long-time faux Conservative rep and I see it as a "shot across his bow" for the next election which may be in about a year, lol.

[Lisa]

52. good point -- "shot across his bow"

Same here, for our neo-Con (Gary Lunn). He walked away with a huge number of votes last time, but now finds himself with a plurality, and 3 opposition parties putting in strong showings. So now he knows he can't afford to miss those all-party events like he did this time. I think it's entirely likely that the Liberal (a guy with the unfortunate surname of Mulroney) could defeat him. I was right about my hunch that David Anderson next door would just hang in there ... and I have the same feeling about this prediction.

I'll bet that your NDP team will be able to do a lot with the information gained from this past campaign. The poll-by-poll breakdown for this election is very helpful, because the NDP will know which streets have the most supporters (and even whether their get-out-the-vote efforts are paying off) -- if we know an area has lots of Greens, for example, we can run up special literature on our environmental platform.

[Spazito]

53. Exactly,

the key will be, imo, to start now to work on gathering statements made by Harper and the other faux Conservatives in the House of Commons, via Hansert, and use them to refute every letter, every speech they will write or make from now to the next election which, as we know, will be far sooner than the usual 4 year wait.

It is my intent to send in a responding letter to the editor for every one that our faux Conservative writes.

One other thing, the faux Conservatives will hold a policy conference to draft their policies seeing as they had not done that before yesterday's election and we can use both statements made during the conferences and the policies that are adopted to keep on their backs and keep the public informed of their REAL agenda.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

54. What about Reynolds? That was nearly a shocker.

To be rid of John Reynolds the Crook would be so sweet.

[Spazito]

55. Did he squeak through? Damn, I thought he was defeated....

I didn't check the nail-biter results this morning tho.

[iverglas]

3. popular vote breakdown

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/29/canada/elxn_wrap040629

Liberals: 36.71%
Conservatives: 29.61%
Bloc: 12.40%
NDP: 15.69%
Other: 5.47%


Noteworthy:

The NDP has a larger share of the national popular vote than the BQ, but 19 seats to the BQ's 54.

The BQ has 12.4% of the popular vote and 17.5% of the seats.
The NDP has 15.7% of the popular vote and 6% of the seats.
The Liberals have 36.7% of the popular vote and 43.8% of the seats.
The Conservatives have 29.6% of the popular vote and 32% of the seats.

The Green Party did not get any seats in BC after all, but did get enough of the popular vote (I think it was 3.2%) to entitle it to public campaign funding next election.

In my solidly NDP poll, the vote breakdown (199 votes cast) was
NDP 100
Liberal 49
Conservative 43
Green 17

That's an example of the importance of the vote split in a multi-party race. My poll was more NDP than other polls in the constituency. If the Conservative vote had collapsed (the Conservatives have never held this riding in living memory), the Liberal could have won the riding. Also, the Green vote could have been a factor in an NDP loss.

The introduction of some form of proportional representation is high on the NDP shopping list of things it will be seeking from the Liberals in exchange for propping up a Liberal government.

[gula]

8. Proportional representation is the only way to go

I am sick and tired of getting scr*ed in every election.

[TO Kid]

38. PR won't happen

No sane politician changes the system that put him in power.

Proportional representation has been part of the NDP platform since before I was old enough to vote, but in the provinces where they governed they never addressed it. A look at the numbers will explain why- in Ontario, for example, the NDP won ~39% of the vote in 1990 but won a strong majority.

[SidDithers]

4. Nominate Chuck Cadman for Speaker...

He's the independant from BC. That would give the Liberal/NDP a 154-153 edge in voting.

I'll have to check if there are any recounts going on, maybe there's a chance that one of the close seats could swing back to the NDP or Liberals from the Conservatives.

It's too bad, things were looking much better when I went to bed last nite.

Sid

[Screaming Lord Byron]

5. There's the possibility of many recounts.

I can't remember the criteria for automatic recounts, but there are a lot of seats where the NDP in particular were edged out by less than 500 votes. Parties can request recounts under certain conditions.

[iverglas]

7. recounts

That article said judicial recount is automatic where the difference is less than 0.1% of the vote. In a 30,000-vote riding, that would be 30 votes. That's pretty unusually close.

There's also the possibility of challenged ballots making the difference, but that's rare. We didn't have any in my poll -- we just accepted all the weird blobs that people put in their circles, even the one where it looked like someone had marked an X and then scratched it out. (What's in people's minds? What's so hard about putting an X in a circle??) I think some people are used to computer-counted thingies, like some multiple-choice tests, where you fill in the little circle with your pencil; the circles on ballots are just a little big for that, but some people did it anyhow.

A friend of mine was a candidate in a municipal election about 15 years ago when challenged ballots were the subject of the judicial recount. It all came down to one ballot (for his opponent) which had been marked with a happy face inside the circle. Good grief. But this is potentially an "identifying mark" -- the sort of thing that the candidate's representative observing the count could notice, so that the candidate could then give the voter the payoff for the vote.

[TrogL]

25. My Conservative colleagues were good about that

Damn Liberal supporters need lessons on how to mark ballots. Conservatives were fine - X's and the occasional checkmarks. My guys filled in circles, crosshatches, one guy even made a big checkmark, then marked the others "no". The DRO wasn't going to allow that one but the Conservative scrutineer said it showed intent before I could get a word in.

[iverglas]

29. whoa, bad one

You should have got that word in. It may have shown intent, but it may also have been an "identifiable mark". Best to get the challenge on record when concerned, and let the authorities sort it out later.

Sometimes, of course, there's no point in being stroppy.

Did I mention the Liberal scrutineer in the previous federal election who spent the evening challenging ballots ... marked for HIS CANDIDATE? His strategy escaped me. An excess of honest non-partisan zeal, I suppose.

[TrogL]

36. It wasn't going to make the slightest bit of difference

The Conservatives were 40-50 votes ahead in each poll (ie. subset of a riding). One vote wasn't going to make a difference.

[iverglas]

43. like I wuz saying

Sometimes, there's no point in being stroppy.

But also, sometimes one doesn't know what's going on in other polls elsewhere, in terms of both vote counts and weird ballots, and so it may still be better to be safe than sorry.

[MGKrebs]

27. 30,000 x .1 = 3000

:)

[iverglas]

30. uh

30,000 x .1 = 3000

Yes ... but 30,000 times .1 PER CENT (i.e. 0.001) = 30.

My math can often be counted on.


edit: Oops, but my typing can't always. That's 30,000, not 20,000 as I originally mistyped.

Just for clarification, the judicial recount is automatic where the difference is less than 0.1 per cent of the vote, which is "X" times 0.001, not times 0.1.

[MGKrebs]

32. Wow, that is a tight margin.

[iverglas]

10. final outcomes by riding

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/candidatesridings/index.html

Just in answer to our Liberal colleagues who suggest that NDP voters can/should be blamed for splitting the vote and producing Conservative winners in some ridings, here's some food for thought.

Dewdney-Alouette, BC results:

CON 38.52%
NDP 32.69%
LIB 21.88%

Gosh, just imagine what would have happened if 1/3 of those Liberals had got smart and voted NDP.

Ditto Nanaimo-Alberni, BC:

CON 39.03%
NDP 32.4%
LIB 19.82%

and New Westminster-Coquitlam:

CON 32.84%
NDP 32.74%
LIB 27.31%

Now there's a squeaker. 15635 to 15590. 47615 votes, winning margin of 0.09% -- less than the 0.1% that produces an automatic recount. But still, 23 votes would have to be recounted away from the Conservatives to the NDP, or more away from the Conservatives and split between the NDP and Liberals.

Another close one, Southern Interior, BC:

CON 36.59%
NDP 35.11%
LIB 17.94%

16,928 to 16,247: 46,268 total votes, the difference is 0.0147%.

Just think, if a few of those Liberals had voted NDP ... and then there are the 3,656 Green voters in that riding. I hope they're happy.

I don't think us NDPers need bear all the burden of not voting strategically anti-Conservative, myself.

[Spazito]

17. One part of me wants to say: Damn greens, etc, but I support our...

multi-party system so I have to accept the rights of the voters to vote for whomever they feel strongly about even though it may cause a split. I have to say, though, given I am in one of those very close ridings listed above, the Southern Interior one, that I have to fight with myself to be open-minded, lol.

I choose to vote strategically, voted NDP even though I am, at heart, a Liberal and many of my friends did too but there wasn't quite enough of us, unfortunately.

[SidDithers]

44. I would never complain that the NDP split the vote...

I'm a big fan of the multi-party system, and feel it's up to each voter to decide how to vote.

Though, maybe if some of those Greens had voted NDP instead... :)

Also, I noticed the Marijuana Party got 33,000 votes nationwide. I was going to dig into the results to see if, had their votes gone NDP, it might have affected the outcome in any ridings.

Sid

[iverglas]

6. good one

That would solve his dilemma.

Indeed, wasn't it just a drag to wake up and find those 3 seats gone? I'd passed out around 12, I think, having made it home from the poll after a hard hour of vote-counting -- whew, were my eyes tired, after watching 199 paper ballots get divided into piles by the DRO in my poll and recorded by the poll clerk, while the Liberal scrutineer and I sat there making scratches on paper to keep a running double-check tally (and checked with each other each time we hit a "10" mark, to be sure). (I jest; paper ballot-counting is the easiest and safest way in the world to decide an election.)

I felt so sorry for her ... my candidate ended up with an even 100, hers with 49. A Liberal scrutineer watching his/her candidate losing a poll is a sad sight to behold; the arrogance just gets punctured right out of them.

We only had one ballot rejected -- somebody who decided it was a good idea to vote for both the NDP candidate *and* the Green candidate. Duh. Must have thought s/he was in one of those proportional representation countries. ;)

[Spazito]

16. Excellent idea!

For many reasons. I respect Chuck Cadman and love that he won in spite of the faux Conservatives flying in a candidate to boot him out as the party nominee.

[gula]

9. Sure liked last night's result better.

Glad to hear that the Greens won enough votes to get financing.

[iverglas]

11. the Greens

Yeah, they get their financing -- but at the expense of a couple of NDP seats in BC, the ones that would have tipped the balance in the House.

I'm afraid that I take little pleasure in their small victory at that high a cost. Really, this just isn't the USA, and while it may be nice to be Green, I think we can expect them to consider the rest of us in situations like that. (I know that's too much to expect of BQ voters ...)

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/candidatesridings/bc/index.html

Nanaimo-Alberni and Southern Interior, BC (as far as I've looked on the list ... gotta get some work done), would have gone NDP if the Green voters had voted strategically.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

12. Ah, the good old Green Tories.

[iverglas]

13. in my polling station

The Green scrutineer, a pleasant, quiet older gentleman with a heavy European accent, was so pleased at the obvious NDP win we could expect based on results in the half-dozen polls at the station (even though they were obviously more heavily NDP than some parts of the riding), said he'd see us at the victory party. Oh yeah? I said.

I mean, it's nice that he was pleased we'd won, and all, but he hadn't exactly helped.

I've probably mentioned: in this riding, I think it was in the 88 federal, the Green candidate was widely believed to be a Tory in funny coloured clothing. The suspicion was confirmed when he actually ran for the Tories in the next election. It's a riding where the outcome of the 3-way vote split can be crucial, and the Tories were blatantly trying to siphon off NDP votes. It didn't work, that time.

[Tommy_Douglas]

21. Respect the multi-party system...

Don't lament how the Green's took NDP seats. It works both ways. The Tories and Alliance split votes in the past as well.

Plus Harper won't hold the Conservative party together. There is a whole lot of infighting in that party. Traditional PC'ers vs. the Alliance nut jobs.

Time will tell. Be proud of our electoral system. Sure it ain't perfect but its better then a two party system.

[Spazito]

23. Totally agree, the good outweighs the bad, imo

*

[iverglas]

33. it's like those rights

Respect the multi-party system...

Like, people have the right to say all sorts of noxious things, but that doesn't make it right to say them.

People obviously have the right to vote however they want. That doesn't make it right, for someone who purportedly gives a shit, to vote in such a way that a Conservative candidate wins -- certainly, in any event, when it's entirely predictable that this is what such votes will do.

This really isn't like Ralph Nader, at least to some of us. Gore may have been arguably "like" Bush, but the NDP really just isn't arguably like the Conservatives.

Be proud of our electoral system. Sure it ain't perfect but its better then a two party system.

Well, I have come (admittedly reluctantly, being a bit of a traditionalist in these things, and not prone to wanting to fix things that aren't broke) to pretty strongly favour some form of proportional representation. So I'll be prouder of our system once we get some of that.

Meanwhile, yes, it's infinitely better than a two-party system. But having multiple parties to choose from really just doesn't mean that it's "right" to choose willy-nilly, or do whatever makes one feel warm and fuzzy inside, without a thought for what the actual outcome is going to be for the rest of us.

[Hand]

56. Harper's other problem...

is called Peter Mackay. That slimy little backstabber wants to be party leader and will happily break any promise he makes to Harper to get there--the same way he broke his word to Peter Orchard about PC/Alliance amalgamation. Harper's going to have to watch his back as long as Mackay's his deputy.

Feh. Those two arseholes deserve each other.

:evilgrin:

[gula]

15. I certainly agree with you on the BC votes

In my riding however, the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

Lastly, what do BQ voters have to do with the Greens? Personally I think BQ voters are deluded, I mean, why else would anybody vote for a local party in a federal election.

Back to what I said before, we need proportional representation if we ever want to have any fairness in the system.

[iverglas]

18. BQers and Greens

BQ voters are single-issue voters, or at least unengaged voters. They take no responsibility for the effects of their vote on anything other than Quebec.

In point of fact, they don't even do a good job of protecting Quebec's interests, since the Bloc is never going to have the power to actually do anything but say "no", and hope to extort concessions on matters that, if turned over to the provinces, *might* benefit Quebec, but will erode the base that makes it possible for Quebec to get those benefits in the first place.

Let's turn health care funding and control over to the provinces. Well, Quebec isn't going to do away with universal health care in the immediate future ... but Alberta sure is. And how long will Quebec's system survive if the federal funding is then slashed?

And for pity's sake, did they think about the fact that the Quebec government to which all this power and money that the BQ wants for Quebec would be getting handed over is a *Liberal* government with years left in its term??

It's self-interested *and* short-sighted voting.

Green votes, in situations like the ones in BC where the NDP would have won had those votes gone to the NDP, elected Conservative MPs. One can't avoid that responsibility by claiming to have voted one's conscience.

Just as BQ voters can't avoid responsibility for what happens to the rest of Canada, and necessarily to Quebec, which just is not going to be able to go it alone as some sort of democratic socialist paradise (were that even what today's PQ stood for) in North America if the other provinces also withdraw from universal national programs, for instance.

[gula]

19. Agree again

My neighbour said she was going to vote BQ because the Conservatives were going to abolish French, notice not just bilingualism. I tried to explain to her how her voting BQ was really only going to help the Cons but no go.

[hermetic]

20. Alberta is doing away

with universal health care? I'd like to read more about that.

[Spazito]

22. They had to backtrack on their hidden plan to privatize some of

the services because Martin and Layton brought it out into the sunshine and the premier of Alberta had to release his plan before the election. Had he stuck to his original plan on privatization, it would have hurt the faux Conservatives in Alberta, a stronghold for them, and so Klein got his marching orders to revise his plan. I love it!

[Screaming Lord Byron]

28. We have a Provincial election in November.

This isn't over.
Still, yesterday's results bode well for your provincial election next March, eh?

[Spazito]

34. Yep, the NDP is re-surging here, I have a personal qualifier tho,

the previous NDP provincial government "Cheneyed" us, big time, and if they think they can just say "Get over it" and not change some things it will be closer than it should be, imo.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

41. Martin should declare Marshall Law on Alberta in order to....

bring them back into the fold of REALITY!

[daleo]

39. Not do away with

More like "chip away at". Given enough time the effect would be the same, though.

[Frederic Bastiat]

57. Quebec has been doing that for years

Private MRI clinics are all over this province.

[TrogL]

26. Your forgot the Marijuana Party

Their platform...(better sit down - it's gonna be a long read)

.

.

.

"Legalize Marijuana"

.

.

(You may rise).

Next election I'm gonna have Ahknaten run for the Marijuana Party on the condition that I be campaign manager and write the platform. I think I can do a little better than that.

If we get in, I'm a shoe-in for Secretary of State.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

14. Why do I have this picture

Of Martin having to change his eyes to escape from a horde of rocket-powered Quebecquois separatists?

Edit: Calling Photoshop artists!

[MGKrebs]

31. I'm curious,

I don't know much about the parliamentary (?) form.

What does the ballot look like? It appears that you voting for a party rather than an individual?

If so, do you know who will be representing you before you vote for that Party?

Are your representatives coming from specific districts? In other words, if your city or district votes "Liberal", is there a person who will represent that district? Or all all the votes nationwide counted and seats are assigned by Party tenure (or something similar)?

Would this only be for the legislative body? You would still vote for an individual for Mayor, for example?

Does each Province also have it's own legislature? Is that vote the same, that is, you vote for a party instead of an individual? If so, then is there sometimes an election where you choose a party for the national legislature, and you also choose a party for the Provincial legislature, and theoretically, you could choose two different Parties?

Thanks for your help.

[Spazito]

37. Our ballots list the candidates names alphabetically with their party

affiliation after the name, on one side of the ballot and a circle across from each of the names, you just put a mark, preferably an x in the circle of your chosen candidate and, voila, it is done. The ballot is stiff paper or light cardboard with a detachable tab that the poll worker removes before you drop the ballot into the ballot box.

[iverglas]

42. and it looks like this ;)

[iverglas]

40. the importance of party voting

The House of Commons is composed of 308 seats, each representing a particular electoral district. (That's a rough average of 100,000 total population per district, or "riding", although the breakdown varies considerably because of provincial and rural representation concerns, e.g.) A large city like Toronto or Montreal is composed of many ridings. There are also vast areas with small scattered populations all represented by one Member of Parliament. Here's a quick example of an (old) electoral map:
/image_view

The head of government -- the Prime Minister -- is the leader of the party with the most seats in the House, if that party has a majority of seats.

In a multi-party system, it is entirely possible that no one party will have a majority, e.g. a breakdown of 40-30-20-10 / 100 seats.

In that case, the party with the most seats will normally get a kick at governing. In Canada, we have never formed actual coalitions, where a second party gets formal "say" in the government, e.g. by being given Cabinet positions. It goes on a vote-by-vote basis. If the governing party can't get enough support for a legislative initiative that counts as a "confidence vote" (especially bills concerning money), the government itself is defeated when its bill is defeated, and must go to the head of state (the Governor General) and resign. An election could be called, or the GG could decide to let another party take a kick at governing.

Constitutional crises occur when the GG meddles too much and usurps the people's role by selecting a government whose claim to the title is shaky. This happened in Australia a few years back.

Provincial governments and elections (equivalent to your state governments) work exactly the same way as federal governments and elections. Municipal governments have direct elections for Mayor and separate elections for local councillors.

Provincial elections are completely separate from federal elections, and just as in the US, people often cast apparently conflicting votes in the two. Quebec recently ousted a separatist provincial government and elected the Liberals to govern the province, just before electing an overwhelming majority of separatist MPs and rejecting the Liberals in this federal election. Go figure.

The NDP is demanding that some form of proportional representation -- seats in the House of Commons assigned based on the popular rather than to the "first past the post" candidate in each riding -- be brought in, and this would of course require all sorts of constitution-amending and provincial agreement-getting. It is increasingly rare in the modern world *not* to have some proportional representation in national governments.

The need for this, in democratic representation terms, is obvious when you see that the NDP got 6% of the seats in the House yesterday, but 15.7% of the vote nation-wide. A lot of us NDP voters were simply disenfranchised by the results.

The big difference between our systems is that the PM is the head of government only, while the Prez is head of govt and head of state. The PM is "responsible" to the House of Commons, which can toss him and his govt out any time a majority of the MPs decide to. This is why party discipline is much stronger in the parliamentary system. If a governing party's MPs start voting against the party position, the governing party could fall.

So we see none of the deal-making that goes on in the US Congress among individual representatives. Some people think that the poor lowly back-benchers should be given more power, and call this strong party discipline a "democratic deficit". I call it running on a platform that you intend to hold to after you are elected, and if you don't like it, go find another party and try to get elected on its platform. ;)

[TO Kid]

35. Could shake out a number of ways

My guess is that Martin will spend a year or so bribing us with our own money, then when the party coffers are full and the polls are more favourable he'll introduce a budget next year that none of the other parties can live with in order to provoke a no-confidence vote.

One nit to pick- only three of the eight minority regimes here were backed by the NDP- Pearson twice and Trudeau once. This time around, Martin will be in the position Joe Clark was in where he only needs to pick up a handful of votes to stay in office. None of the other leaders will want an election before they've top up their war chests so there will be a lot of MPs missing a lot of votes. None of them will force an election unless all opposition parties expect to make gains.

[SidDithers]

45. Of the 8 minority governments in the last 80 years,

half have lasted 6 months or less, and only one has gone longer than 3 years. We'll see how long this one goes.

Date
Governing Party
Prime Minister
Duration

1979-79
Progressive
Conservative Party
Joe Clark
6 months

1972-74
Liberal Party
Pierre Trudeau
1 year, 5 months

1965-68
Liberal Party
Lester Pearson
2 years, 4months

1963-65
Liberal Party
Lester Pearson
2 years, 4 months

1962-63
Progressive
Conservative Party
John Diefenbaker
6 months

1957-58
Progressive
Conservative Party
John Diefenbaker
5 months

1925-26
Liberal Party
William Mackenzie King
6 months

1921-25
Liberal Party
William Mackenzie King
3 years, 7 months

Sid

Edit to include link:
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/federal/2004/minority/non-majority-governments.html

[CHIMO]

48. Some Fallout Starting

CBC radio just announced that one of Klein's MP has crossed the floor to support the Alberta Alliance because of the damage Klein did to Harper.
Klein has been more afraid of loosing support on the right having another right party to split the vote.
Looks like Klein wants to race to the polls before he has the right vote split.

[CHIMO]

49. MLA leaves Klein's Conservatives

Edmonton - Conservative MLA Gary Masyk, who once advocated sending criminals to the salt mines, is leaving Ralph Klein's government to sit as a member of the Alberta Alliance.
http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ed_alliance20040629


This after 12 former PC helped Landslide Annie during her campaign.
Funny. Looks like Ralphy wanted someone other than Harper running the show?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

51. It's Gary Masyk. He's a whacko.

He garnered headlines when he advocated that repeat offenders and pedophiles be sent to Siberia to work in the salt mines.

Incidentally, Klein hates Harper.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

50. Good. The Alberta Alliance are wacko.

Maybe they'll prove the death of Ralph Klein's administration.

[daleo]

59. I have been hoping for something like this

Maybe this will split the Calgary conservatives from the country conservatives. The former are more about the money, and the latter are more "social conservatives", as far as I can tell.

[Frederic Bastiat]

58. Proves that I was right all along

Canada really is a centrist country ;)