POLI 410 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Instant-Runoff Voting, Industrial Revolution, Compulsory Voting
15 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
POLI410 Electoral Reform in Canada Lecture Notes
SMP In Canada
- Implicit preference for this throughout NA, but political science has conformed to the
status quo
- SMP has been viewed as superior for a number of reasons
o Provides for local representation,
▪ Better represent regional diversity
o Crates stable 2 party systems
▪ Sold governance, favours stability over volatility
▪ Regulation between 2 man parties, captures the spread of the country
▪ Criticism for SMP being undemocratic, countered by thoughts about good
and effective governance, stability
o Produces majority governments
▪ PR fuels instability, extreme ends of political parties emerge
▪ Eg. Ethnically nationalist mandates – prevent them from gaining power
o Provides a regulation alternation in power between the different parties
▪ Promotes no party fragmentation
o and represents an efficient way of legislating policy
▪ PR criticised for gridlock, SMP creates majority governments = less
frustration
▪ Usually built around the experiences of Italy, Israel, Switzerland
▪ Tendency to create two party systems
▪ Significant barriers of entry for new party
- PR systems by large have more parties, produce more coalition governments. and fewer
entries of new parties
- Effect that electoral systems have on parties may be dampened by other institutional
and cultural factors
- Assumptions of SMP: Canada does not adhere to it, many of the benefits are
questionable whether if they apply to the Canadian context
Problems with SMP
- Winner takes all system
o Rewards the strongest party
▪ Inflates seats, instead of popular vote
▪ Get nothing if you are #2
▪ 1987 – Liberal in New Brunswick won all their seats, but holds no seat in
parliament – crisis of democracy, despite winning 40% popular
o Rewards parties with regional strongholds
▪ Advantage to stoke regional divisions in the country
o Disadvantages parties with broad national support
- Cairs argues that this has led parties to stoke diisio i Caada
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
How Canada challenges some assumptions about SMP systems?
- A significant number of minority governments
o Rarely stable, falls quickly
o Early 2000s, many elections
o Not good for democracy, alienation of voters, tired of electoral campaigns,
doesn't breed good citizens
- Does not create national unity (rather, stokes division)
o Perpetuates division within society, making it fruitful for parties to run on
divisive platforms
- Has not produced a consistent two-party system
o Violates Duergers la
Duergers la
- Thesis: that for both mechanical and psychological reasons, SMP system will provide
two dominant parties (to the exclusion of other parties)
o Mechanical: institutional, observable, not advantageous to be a minority
position or to have small levels of support throughout the country – different
groups of parties will mobilize around one party
o Psychological: voters will vote differently in different systems – strategically –
might vote for second choice because more viable in their riding
▪ No electoral benefit to being a minority government
- Duergers la has ot haraterized Caadas partys systes (Gaines 1999)
Why is Canada an outlier? Gaines 2009
o Two party dominance, in particular liberals
o Always existed a third party that at win an election but takes a significant
portion of the vote
- Previous experimentations with other electoral systems
o Effects of electoral regimes persisted over time
o Willigess to ote for a party to ot for goeret i ay that ist preset
in other SMP systems
o Norms around multi-party systems from experiences
o Path dependency argument
- Regionalism
o Different at federal and provincial level
o Across time, vote differently across regional and federal level
- Federalism
o Consistent pressures over time to adopt a more representative system
o the stronger party usually benefits from the electoral systems than the weaker
o debates may be renewed around this, but is actually a long and consistent
history
o get power for reform – getting government or forming opposition
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Implicit preference for this throughout na, but political science has conformed to the status quo. Pr systems by large have more parties, produce more coalition governments. and fewer entries of new parties. Effect that electoral systems have on parties may be dampened by other institutional and cultural factors. Assumptions of smp: canada does not adhere to it, many of the benefits are questionable whether if they apply to the canadian context. Winner takes all system: rewards the strongest party. Cair(cid:374)(cid:859)s argues that this has led parties to stoke di(cid:448)isio(cid:374) i(cid:374) ca(cid:374)ada. A significant number of minority governments: rarely stable, falls quickly, early 2000s, many elections, not good for democracy, alienation of voters, tired of electoral campaigns, doesn"t breed good citizens. Does not create national unity (rather, stokes division: perpetuates division within society, making it fruitful for parties to run on divisive platforms. Has not produced a consistent two-party system: violates du(cid:448)erger(cid:859)s (cid:858)la(cid:449)(cid:859)
