In Defence of the First Past the Post Voting System

There are a large number of people who would probably be triggered by the title of this post. To them the FPTP voting system is an anti-democratic abomination of a voting system. They are wrong of course. It is a tried and true voting system that predates Confederation and that has served Canada well. 

All that being said I will agree that it has some very serious flaws but I would also assert that all of the alternatives that are proposed to replace it have different but equally serious flaws. In the end the flaws of the different methods of voting cancel each other out so opponents of the FPTP system need to come up with much more compelling reasons for changing how we vote.

There are some specific reasons why this system is an effective method for electing people.

First, every politician in this system must face their constituents, which means that local election campaigns can hinge on local issues. Certainly the national campaign is important but I have seen elections where a local issue has dominated the local election and the national campaigns were less important. For example, I worked for an Ottawa Member of Parliament in the late 90s. During that time there was a proposal before the National Capital Commission, the government department charged with taking care of government buildings and facilities in the Ottawa area, to widen one of the bridges that crosses the Ottawa River and connects Ontario to Quebec. My MP lobbied against the project because of the impact on traffic it would cause on both sides of the bridge. However, the MP for the Quebec riding on the other side of the bridge was a Cabinet Minister and his views prevailed. In the 2000 election all of the Opposition candidates going up against my MP focused on this failure to stop the bridge expansion. The Chretien government had just announced $100 billion in tax cuts but it was the bridge issue that dominated the local campaign in Ottawa West-Nepean in 2000. Federal politicians need to be able to address local issues and the FPTP system is very effective at forcing them to do that.

Canada is a huge country, with with six different regions, Eastern Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairie Provinces, British Columbia and the North. Each of those regions have different interests and different ways of looking at politics in Canada. The FPTP system allows them to express those differences very effectively. It is an open question of whether other systems would be as effective. Unfortunately, Canada is not a political petri dish so switching to a new system only to find out it is not as effective is not an option. However, it should be noted that with the increasing polarization of the electorate, which is falling along regional lines, the FPTP system may be losing its effectiveness in dealing with regional interests. That is a situation that needs to be examined and ways have to be found to mitigate any negative impacts it might have and that would include looking at how we vote. However, it will also need to be addressed by looking at facts and evidence in a non-partisan way which is not going to happen.

Third, as I alluded to in my introductory paragraph Canada has used the FPTP system to elect its governments since before Confederation. It is a proven method of electing the government that we want and the governments that we need. I shudder to think what would have happened to Canada if John A. MacDonald would have had to share power with Opposition politicians who did not have the same vision for Canada he did. Or MacKenzie King having to share power during WWII or a succession of governments during the Cold War. The simple fact is, more often than not, the FPTP system elects stable governments, which all countries need to thrive.

The FPTP voting system is not perfect. No voting system is. However, it has proven effective and it forces federal politicians in this country not to forget about local issues. Although its flaws are well documented they are not enough to ditch the system without having another alternative whose flaws are just as well documented, acknowledged by the proponents of these systems, and ways to mitigate the impacts of these flaws worked out before switching systems. Just saying we should switch because you have faith that your preferred system is better, or "more democratic" without sound evidence to prove that is not enough. 

The Canadian Case Against Proportional Representation

I have been a critic of the idea of switching the Canadian voting system from First-Past-the-Post to Proportional Representation for quite some time. It is not that I dislike that particular way of voting it is just that I reject the notion that it is "more democratic" than any other voting system including FPTP.

I also have a problem with the fact that most of the proponents of PR, in Canada, are partisans for the NDP and Green Party. If anybody does not believe that they are proponents of that system because of naked partisan interests, I have a bridge to sell you in New York City. I have had discussions with proponents of PR who have rejected all other forms of voting that would allow "all votes to count" including ranked ballot and they have not been able to give a reasonable answer as to why. (I know why but they would never admit it.)

One of the arguments against PR is it can lead to unstable governments or allow the more extreme elements of society a chance to access some levers of power. The response of the proponents of PR is to confidently assert that PR in Canada would result in such stable governments as Germany or New Zealand. They reject out of hand any notion that it might actually resemble Italy or Israel or that Canada might suffer the same fate as Czechoslovakia, where a PR system completely failed in preventing that country from breaking in two.

The proponents of PR in Canada absolutely refuse to consider what kind of governments would result if that system was used in Canada. They just stick to the German or New Zealand example and take it on faith that Canada would be like them.

So let us consider this issue. Are they correct?

The assumption of PR proponents, in Canada, is under such as system only four national parties would make up the composition of the House of Commons. The Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Greens. With four parties there would always be stable coalitions and therefore things would be great. When you ask the obvious question of what about the Bloc Quebecois they confidently state that if they win 5% of the vote they get seats in the House but if they do not reach that threshold they do not. The big problem with that is 4% of the national vote for the Bloc equates to about 25% in the Province of Quebec. Do the proponents of PR truly believe that Quebecers would take the Bloc being excluded from the House after it won 25% of the vote in Quebec? Not likely and if they tried to force that through it would cause a national unity crisis in this country. So, Canada being Canada the solution to such a crisis would be to give way and make an exception to the 5% threshold for the Bloc Quebecois.

Of course, such a solution would only create problems in other regions of the country. The Prairie Provinces, the Eastern Provinces, BC and Ontario all make up distinct regions in this country and if a regional party in Quebec were to receive special treatment it would not take long for regional parties in the other regions to demand the same treatment. Again to prevent a national unity crisis exceptions would have to be made for those parties and the number of parties could be quite large. Conceivably, the number really has no limit, strictly regional parties could arise or a bunch of single issue parties only based in one of the regions could pop up, all demanding the same treatment as the Bloc Quebecois.

While not all of these parties would receive enough votes nationally and/or regionally to earn seats in the House enough of them would to make our parliaments much less tidy than what the proponents of PR believe it would be, where the House of Commons only has four parties in it. In the end the most likely result is a parliament that resembles the Italian or Israeli parliaments as opposed to the German and New Zealand parliaments.

As both the Italian and Israeli parliaments have demonstrated having that many parties vying for a seat at the government table provides large openings for extreme single issue parties to gain much more power and influence than they would normally have in a non-PR system. Right now the FPTP system provides some insulation against the really extreme crackpots from accessing the levers of power, although it is not perfect in doing so by any stretch of the imagination. However, a PR system in Canada would strip away all of that insulation with untold impacts on the social fabric of our country.

The simple fact is Canada is a huge country geographically, where each region has their own interests and ways of looking at being Canadian. Anybody that believes that fact would not impact how a PR voting system would be implemented in Canada is dreaming. That fact alone is a reason not to adopt a Proportional Representation voting system at the Federal level in this country. When you add all of the other reasons that I have discussed in this space before the case against PR in this country is quite compelling.

Will the Conservative Stay United?

In a previous post I mentioned that the fact Erin O'Toole released a video indicating that a government lead by him would defund the CBC was interesting because such a video would only resonate with the Conservative Base. Further I speculated as to why he would release such a video and mentioned that it could be their internal data analysis is showing an erosion of the Conservative base, as some of the public polls are hinting at. With the rise of the Wexit Parties in the Prairies and the PPC in Ontario and Quebec there are alternatives to the Conservatives. Whether they could be considered credible is debatable but I would also point out that no one took the Reform Party seriously until they exploded on to the scene.

This line of thought did cause me to explore this notion a little more. 

The last time a national conservative party was truly united was the Progressive Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney. Mr. Mulroney won two straight majorities that went through Quebec, Ontario and Alberta. 

Then in 1993 the PCPC shattered along regional lines. In Quebec their voters went to the Bloc Quebecois. In Alberta they went to the Reform Party and in Ontario they split evenly between the Reform Party and the PCPC. It remained that way until just before the 2004 election when the Canadian Reform Alliance Party (the old Reform Party) and the remnants of the PCPC merged (or the PCPC was swallowed whole by the CRAP, depending on who you talk to.)

This new Conservative Party of Canada managed to unite itself and win three elections but it is a crucial fact that they were only able to win one majority government when they finally managed to reunite the Conservative voters of Ontario and Alberta and a sprinkling of Conservative voters in other western provinces. Interestingly when the old PCPC voters who turned to the Bloc turned away from them in 2011 they turned to the NDP and did not turn back to the CPC. 

All of this is to say that the bonds that unite the Conservative Party of Canada have not really been proven to be strong and resilient. It is true that there are probably not many old PCPC supporters left in the party so what is left is probably quite happy with the party but the rise of the PPC and the Wexit Parties do indicate that the Conservative base is not monolithic and that it may not be as rock solid as conventional wisdom believes.

The CPC was Stephen Harper's baby. He was the one who did the work to create it. He was the only CPC leader who could keep the more extreme elements of the Canadian Conservative Movement under wraps. Without him the Conservative Party of Canada has not been the same.

I do not know the answer to my question. It would not surprise me that they will somehow muddle through until they can finally get their act together but it would also not surprise me if the next election resembles 1993, and another united national conservative party breaks apart.

The Canadian Green Party

The only reason why the Canadian Green Party is on the electoral map in Canada is because of Elizabeth May. She put in the hard work and effort to take a fringe movement most people had never heard of and make it somewhat respectable.

The only problem is the Green Party and her became interchangeable. She was the Green Party and the Green Party was her. So when she announced that she would be stepping down as leader it was going to have a negative impact on the Party's standing among Canadians.

That means they had to elect a new leader who would be able to replicate what Ms. May had done and they would need to realize that it would not be easy or quick. Judging by the public statements of the new leader of the Green Party, over the last couple of days, it would appear that the Party did not elect the leader who understood that reality

Why is Erin O'Toole talking about defunding the CBC?

I noted on Twitter yesterday that Erin O'Toole has released a video where he states that he will defund the CBC. It is standard fare for the Conservatives because they have been talking about that since the CPC was the Reform Party.

So why is he bothering to mention this now?

As I have stated in this space and as comments on other blogs the best way to see how the political wind is blowing is to watch the political parties and not the polls. The polls might give you clues but they are too easily manipulated and most people do not know how to read them even when they are not.

I believe the defund CBC gambit by Mr. O'Toole speaks volumes. That is the reddest of red meat for Conservatives. It ranks right up there with denying climate change, lowering taxes and reducing immigration, particularly of folks of a darker hue and different religions. The fact that Mr. O'Toole and his team have decided to throw this out there now could be a big indication that their internal data analysis is telling them what the public polls are hinting at.

While I always take polls with a truck load of salt it cannot be denied that many of them are indicating that the Conservatives are below the 30% mark. And the 30% mark is the usual floor for the Conservatives. Hell, in 2015, when the desire for change was at stratospheric levels the Conservatives garnered 30% of the vote because that is their base. If these polls are true and the Conservatives have actually fallen below 30% that would seem to indicate that their base is eroding.

I did not believe the polls but now I not so certain. The defund the CBC gambit could very well indicate that the public polls are on to something. That has been part of the CPC ethos since forever. It does not need to be said and the fact they decided to say it anyway might indicate that the public polls are correct. In short, the defund the CBC gambit could be designed to shore up the base of the CPC because some of it could be leaking to other conservative parties, such as the PPC and the Wexit Parties. 

If the Conservatives have any chance in the next election they need to maintain their base. If they lose it they are guaranteed to lose the election with the possibility of being absolutely creamed. The fact they released a video that would only appeal to that base might indicate that it is not as rock solid as it has been in the past. 

This is not proof that their base is eroding but it is a significant sign and we will have to keep an eye on this going forward. 

General Fortin was not fired he was reassigned

My understanding of the arrangement that saw General Fortin overseeing the distribution of vaccines as they arrived in Canada was he was on temporary assignment, seconded to the Department of Health. Every time he appeared before the cameras he was in full uniform. Not once did I see him in civilian clothing so he was and is still a member of the Canadian Army, with all that comes with that distinction.

As with all temporary military assignments they can end with little or no notice for any reason, including no reason at all. My understanding is General Fortin is still a member of the Canadian Army and he still holds his rank. He was either sent back to his old job in the Army or asked to take leave pending the investigation that prompted his reassignment.

Part of being a member of the military is that the organization that the member works for can assign them to any job whenever they like, based on operational requirements, or based on other requirements. There is no real recourse for the member if they do not like the assignment accept for resigning from the military. Although, it should be known that the military usually does not give such orders without first consulting with the member to determine if that member would be agreeable to the assignment. If not, most of the time the military will make other arrangements. They can be more arbitrary is if the member has some special skills that are not easy to find elsewhere.

He can seek legal recourse regarding his reassignment. That is his right. However, his reassignment came from his superiors, so I would assume it came down the chain of command, which incidentally includes the Defence Minister and the Prime Minister. If he took orders from someone not in the chain of command then he would have a problem. So, I cannot see what he hopes to achieve with his legal challenge. 

Casual Racism, Ignorance and Hubris

This past weekend a mass grave containing over 200 indigenous children was found near the grounds of an old Residential School in Kamloops BC. The find has sparked off a great deal of shock, sadness, outrage and other reactions and emotions.

It has also generated some questions of why the Residential School system happened and the answer is invariably that it was racism, plain and simple, particularly on the part of John A MacDonald.

Unfortunately it is not that simple because history is not that simple. You have to put history into context in order to understand it and in order to attempt not to make the same historical mistakes again and again.

At the time of the establishment of the Residential School system white, European men had been ruling the world for three hundred years. The Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Germans, the French and the English had colonies on all of the continents. They managed to take these lands from the indigenous people of these lands without much effort. So naturally, they believed that the white race was superior to all other races and that they had been gifted the world by God.

In addition white Europeans were not accepting of other cultures, even when they were white Europeans. During the latter part of the 19th Century the English viewed the French with suspicion and contempt, the French viewed the Germans with fear and the Germans thought anybody born east of the Danube was from another planet. So if Europeans were not accepting of fellow white, Christian Europeans they would definitely not be accepting of non-white, non-Christian and "savage" cultures of the people they found in the new world. That is assuming they even recognized the people they found living here as having cultures, which was probably not the case. 

Finally the white politicians that implemented all of these policies believed that they were doing it for the benefit of the indigenous people. Who would not want to enjoy the benefits of European civilization? Keep in mind that these men were so ignorant they were mostly unaware of how uneven was the benefits of living in the European civilization was spread throughout their own societies. They were all wealthy, often owning land or some kind of business and they were doing quite well living in their civilization. As far as they were concerned their efforts were just and beneficent. I sometimes wonder if the lower classes of society would have been making the decisions whether some of the more egregious policies directed at the indigenous people would have been enacted. Probably some, as casual racism was not confined to the upper class, but perhaps not all.

As well, by bringing them into the shining light of God and his Son you were saving their souls from eternal damnation. 

Of course, the problem was the indigenous people did have their own cultures and wanted to maintain them so they had to be forced to give them up and become good Christians in a "civilized" society.

None of this is to defend these policies or the men who enacted them. What I am trying to do is to put all of this into historical context. You see there is a widespread belief that you can prevent repeating history by learning it but there is an underlying fallacy in that belief that just knowing of an event in history is enough to prevent it from happening again.

That is wrong. What you must learn from history is the context around an historical event, situation or decision. That way you can learn the reasons or conditions that lead to them and then learn to recognize those reasons or conditions if you encounter them in the future. Only by doing that do you have any chance of not making the same historical mistakes more than once.

I will give you an example. Many Americans have acknowledged that putting Japanese Americans into internment camps during the Second World War was wrong. However, many of these same Americans saw no problem with the Trump Administration's policy of putting the children of southern migrants into internment camps. If you look at the context for the establishment of the Japanese camps and compare it to the context for the Trump camps there are a great number of parallels. Certainly, not a perfect match but enough to see that many Americans did not learn the right historical lessons from the Japanese camps experience.

My biggest fear in all of this is Canadians will not learn the real lessons that the Residential School System should be teaching us. They will never go beyond the superficial, demanding the removal of some statues and reparations for the victims and/or their descendants, before moving on and failing to recognize the conditions for a similar tragedy sometime in the future.