Canada's 39'th General Election - a case for Proportional Representaion?

January 21, 2006 12:10 PM

Canada is about to head into its 39’th general election. Current Poles have the Bloc Quebecois at 8-12% of the national vote. Because it is concentrated in Quebec, this translates to 53 seats. The NDP, on the other hand, with 17-21% national support, is projected at only 23 seats as its support is spread across the entire country. With the main race between the Conservative and Liberal Parties, we’ve heard little about proportional representation. Even the NDP, which stands to gain most from throwing out the current plurality First Past the Post system, has been oddly silent about this plank in its platform. The question is, why?
posted by generichuman (71 comments total)

Replacing a thread that was taken down earlier, highlighting the interesting part.

I'm not sure why this hasn't been a much, much bigger deal this time around.

The Bloc benefits greatly from the FPP system. Although they only have between 11% and 15% of the raw national vote, all of their votes are highly concentrated across the 60-some-odd seats in Quebec. the NDP's 17-22% is spread across the entire country, and often in areas with already tight races, like some of the NDP vs Conservative races in the West, or against centre-left Liberals in Toronto. So, they can pick up 40% of the votes in a single riding, (adding to their national support percentage,) but still lose the seat.

FPP costs the NDP dearly. It's more than a bit of a mess.

Monday is going to be an interesting day. I cant decide if the Dippers are going to make great gains, or get their asses handed to them by soft-support more scared of a Tory government now than they were in 2004.

(Also, first FPP. I'm sort of nervous.)
posted by generichuman at 12:11 PM on January 21, 2006

AskMe thread on the topic.

MetaTalk thread on the earlier post.
posted by generichuman at 12:14 PM on January 21, 2006

Don't be- this is very comprehensive.
posted by moonbird at 12:17 PM on January 21, 2006

Oooh, too many commas yet again. Damnit.
posted by generichuman at 12:19 PM on January 21, 2006

If we went to a PR system, my bet would be that the first thing you'd see is a lot of fringe parties stealing votes away from the NDP in a greater proportion than from the other parties. The Greens would probably double their popular vote overnight, taking those votes from the NDP, the MLP and the Marijuana party would probably take more, and so on. This way, at least the NDP is the official voice of "the left" in Canada, and seeing as even under a PR system they'll likely never form a government, what's the difference? That's probably why they're not totally gung ho on the subject. That and PR isn't coming to federal politics in my lifetime (hopefully provincial though).

(Oh, and my prediction after going through the ridings one by one for a pool - and giving most of the benefit of the doubt in close races to the CPC - is CPC 155, Lib 70, Bloc 58, NDP 25)
posted by loquax at 12:21 PM on January 21, 2006

The question is, why?

Because neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are dumb enough to kick over the hornet's nest that would be changing the national electoral system in a way that would diminish the influence of Quebec.

Next question?
posted by docgonzo at 12:23 PM on January 21, 2006

The NDP is silent on this plank of their platform because they're smart enough to know that voters don't actually care about it. It's an issue about elections, but it's not really an election issue.

These sorts of things can be made into issues (remember the Triple E Senate?) but fundamentally, people don't give a shit about how elections are handled (see: US electoral college), and it's far easier to run a campaign based on issues that people are already interested in rather than trying to create issues out of whole cloth.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:23 PM on January 21, 2006

Oh, and don't forget Poland.
posted by docgonzo at 12:24 PM on January 21, 2006

Actually, I think it would be the Greens who would benefit most from a shift to PR: their predicted 4.4% of the vote would translate to 14 seats in Parliament.

Also, if more people thought their vote for the Green Party would actually matter, they would be less likely to just vote for the most similar party with a shot at winning.
posted by sindark at 12:25 PM on January 21, 2006

I guess I should have reframed that last bit. The highly visible difference between the NDP and BQ support/seat ratio seems to be a pretty visceral flaw in the system. I thought people would care more, or the media might be making a bigger deal.
posted by generichuman at 12:26 PM on January 21, 2006

Speaking of the Green, and not work a FPP, here's an open letter to the editors of the local newspaper from the previous candidate for the GP in my riding. She's apparently been turfed out against party rules but the party in favour of someone else. No one in the media is paying any attention.

As per the January 20th, 2006 South Delta Leader coverage of the candidates available to Delta-Richmond East, I have held my tongue long enough.

Quite some time ago I gave the reporters of your paper a tremendous amount of information regarding the corruption of democracy within the Green Party of Canada (GPC).

After I reported violations to Elections Canada, I was subjected to GPC retaliation with an undemocratic expulsion from the party. Perhaps one could comment that it does not pay to be a whistleblower. I disagree.

Every person is responsible for ensuring that democracy is healthy in our society, if not, then the very fabric our nation is built upon, will be subject to unravelling. Other nations have been fighting for years to reap the benefits of a democratic society. We have a democracy, so let us enshrine it with due care, and vote wisely.

We have the right to vote, the right to access information before we vote and the media play a pivotal role in providing information to voters. I ask why then have the media not reported responsibly to voters on the corruption of democracy within the Green Party of Canada? Media has frothed at the mouth to report other party corruption.

Inform voters in the South Delta area of the Delta-Richmond East riding that the GPC candidate, Jean-Philippe Laflamme was not democratically nominated by the GPC members within the Electoral District Association that is registered with Elections Canada.

Jean-Philippe Laflamme was well informed prior to his decision to file his candidate papers, that his actions violated the GPC Constitution and democracy. Why would anyone vote for a candidate who does not support democracy? Imagine what other behaviour the voter may receive from such a candidate or the party that permits vicious retaliation tactics.

I believe in the Global Green Charter to preserve a balance between humanity, ecology and economy. However the GPC candidate has not abided by the fundamental principle of the GPC which is grassroots democracy. Due to my passion to enshrine the rights of individuals in our society, I will not be voting green on January 23, 2006.

Voters please assess the candidates as individuals versus their party affiliations. I suggest voting for a quality candidate that values human rights, a candidate that you can envision in parliament as an administrator over your $1.75 per vote. Our lives, family, friends and fellow Canadians will benefit from your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Dana L. Miller
2004 Green Party of Canada Federal candidate
resigned GPC Human Rights Shadow Cabinet member

posted by Kickstart70 at 12:32 PM on January 21, 2006

Oh, and don't forget Poland.

18th century Polish King Stanisław Leszczyński actually has the Bloc running even higher in Quebec. But we all know how inaccurate those historical Poles can be.

I thought people would care more, or the media might be making a bigger deal.

It's been this way forever. The popular vote in Canada simply doesn't matter, and polling the country is an amusing diversion but ultimately useless in try to predict a winner. I agree with you that there is a certain democratic deficiency in this system, but since the only power in Canada resides with the PM and since whether or not the NDP has 20 or 40 seats is irrelevant, simply moving to PR won't actually give NDPers any more of a "voice" in government. The classic example of this kind of discrepancy is actually in 1993, when the PC party won only 2 seats of 300 while managing 16% of the popular vote in the first election that the Reform party really competed in.
posted by loquax at 12:32 PM on January 21, 2006

see fairvote.

PR gets my strongest endoresement, except for the quite serious problem of greater ballot complexity which may disenfranchise some voters, particularily those which need the added representation. but it would be worth the effort.

i would be very interested to see an analysis of what monday's (dreaded) results might have been under some of the various proposed PR schemes.
posted by paradroid at 12:33 PM on January 21, 2006

i would be very interested to see an analysis of what monday's (dreaded) results might have been under some of the various proposed PR schemes.

Keep in mind though that voting strategies would be totally different if a PR scheme was in place and every vote actually mattered. I'm voting MLP in my riding as a protest vote because no matter what, Bill Graham is winning - if my vote counted, I certainly would not. I would guess that at least 30% of all votes cast in Canada are protest votes, and would change in a PR system, not counting the absent voters that would all of a sudden come out if their vote meant something. That's a huge swing, and makes direct translation from the results on Monday impossible.
posted by loquax at 12:37 PM on January 21, 2006

@paradroid

The latest electoral predictions: Seats (% of national vote)

Liberals: 94 (28.2%)
Conservatives: 128 (37.4%)
New Democrats: 28 (17.8%)
Greens: 0 (4.4%)
Bloc Quebecois: 57 (11.2%)
Other: 1 (1%)

Total: 308 (100%)

If % of votes directly equalled seats, the predicted results would be:

Liberals: 87
Conservatives: 115
New Democratic: 55
Green: 14
Bloc Quebecois: 34
Other: 3

Total: 308

Source of predicted figures: democraticSPACE.com
posted by sindark at 12:38 PM on January 21, 2006

One of the benefits of Confederation is that the provinces tend to be breeding grounds for change and reform. What works well in one province is generally expanded to other provinces and then nationwide.

British Columbia got the ball rolling with their Citizen's Assembly on electoral reform and Ontario is following suit.

Also noteworthy is Harper's promise to allow Senate elections. This will give give additional representation of a different sort to the people of Canada.
posted by angrybeaver at 12:38 PM on January 21, 2006

One form of PR that would be an excellent fit for Canada's electoral system is the approval ballot.

This would preserve Canada's Westminster system of government, require only minimal changes in the election process, and allow the individual to make a true choice instead of the lesser of multiple evils. This would also reduce the dominance of the current party system and allow for more independents.
posted by angrybeaver at 12:45 PM on January 21, 2006

Here's one example of how the Canadian Parliament would have looked after the 2004 elections if proportional representation were used compared to the actual seats won:

Party: PR# / actual # of seats (difference)

Liberal: 119 / 135 (-16)
Conservative: 91 / 99 (-8)
New Democrat: 48 / 19 (+29)
Bloc Quebecois: 37 / 54 (-17)
Green: 11 / 0 (+11)
Christian Heritage: 1 / 0 (+1)
Ind. / N.A.: 1/1 (0)

The NDP and Greens make out the best. Bloc the worst.
posted by thirdparty at 12:46 PM on January 21, 2006

One form of PR that would be an excellent fit for Canada's electoral system is the approval ballot.

The problem I have with the Approval Ballot is the same one I have with SVT: it basically hands the Centrist party power in perpetuity.

Think of it this way:

Dippers don't like Liberals. But they really don't like Tories.

Tories don't like Liberals. But they really don't like Dippers.

So in a race between three main parties, the liberals will almost always win, since they're the centrists. A powerful fourth party could make it work, but that would take a lot of effort.
posted by generichuman at 12:51 PM on January 21, 2006

If you're still an undecided Canadian voter, you can check out how'dtheyvote for more information.
posted by showmethecalvino at 1:04 PM on January 21, 2006

"Need some softwood?"

Electoral reform is fine until you get a system, like single transferable vote, that is complex enough to confuse voters or require computers.
The way computers are used in elections is often very different from the way they are used in, say, banking, where you can track each transaction.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 1:29 PM on January 21, 2006

Dear God, anthill.
posted by orange swan at 1:31 PM on January 21, 2006

One post from the previous (deleted) thread made a good point... the Liberals have been given a reputation for corruption partially because of Martin's tactic to go for 'reform' and visible investigation of corruption in the party. The sponsorship scandal wasn't really all that big, money-wise, and compared to some of the crap (Progressive Conservative PM) Mulroney pulled pretty easily fixed.

The tactic that tends to keep you in power longer is deny deny deny, followed by coverup, followed by redirect and scapegoat. I suspect we'll see some of that soon.
posted by anthill at 1:31 PM on January 21, 2006

And I apologize to those whose eyes are melting, but the previous thread got deleted and I couldn' t bear to see such dynamic vigor contained.
posted by anthill at 1:32 PM on January 21, 2006

I actually think I'd like FPP for the lower house. It's the upper house, the Senate, that I'd like to see elected by PR. The advantage of FPP is that it forces candidates to deal with local issues and take local opinion into account. There's no reason we can't have both - we have two houses of parliament, after all.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 1:56 PM on January 21, 2006

Pseudo, I share your opinion exactly. I want to vote for a candidate, not a party, and if I vote for a candidate, I don't want to be represented by someone in another riding.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:00 PM on January 21, 2006

What Pseudoephedrine said. I still haven't heard how the PR advocates plan on maintaining local respresentation at the federal level.

I haven't seen much of substance on the elected vs appointed Senate debate yet. My first instinct is that the appointment of senators is nothing but an exercise in patronage, and that the appointments are purely based on incumbent party strategy. For example, Trudeau's National Energy Program easily passed the upper house, as many Liberal senators had been appointed there under a previous Liberal government. On the other side, Mulroney's undertook shenanigans for getting the GST approved by the Liberal-dominated Senate -- parachuting in of four Tory senators using a weird loophole (they had to be approved by the GG, and why he said yes to it, I'll never know... what's the purpose of this loophole, anybody?). The appointed Senate strikes me as more of an antiquated practice than the FPTP system in the Commons, but I'll confess some ignorance on how it's actually supposed to work in practice. Anyone with more understanding of this issue care to comment?
posted by Succa at 2:15 PM on January 21, 2006

why was it deleted?

Here is SUNDAY ELECTION 2006 ENDORSEMENT GUIDEdocument (being compiled right now until all BC recommendations are made. As i said before, vote for a minority government, hopefully we get a Liberal minority, if not a Cinservative minority is far better for Canada at this point than a Liberal majority.
posted by sundaymag at 2:20 PM on January 21, 2006

I still haven't heard how the PR advocates plan on maintaining local respresentation at the federal level.

Germany does this. You have a local representative, who is whoever wins your district.

But you also vote for a party. After all the districts are chosen, they look at the percentages of the vote that went to each party in the party vote. Then they add an appropriate number of people from each party so that the percentages come out "right" given thresholds and such. Most people in the Bundestag represent a district, some don't.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:21 PM on January 21, 2006

One of the flaws I see in proportional representation, particularly on a nationwide scale, is that there is no guarantee that whoever's elected proportionally has any interest, much less a clue, of the populace of the ridings that helped get them there. Working province-by-province doesn't change the numbers much overall, but might still have the same issues.

The Scottish seem to have figured out the best combination that I can find. Each constituency has a single, directly elected MSP, and, additionally, the country is broken up into eight regions which select seven MSPs proportionally. Overall, there are 73 constituency and 56 "list" seats. In some cases, such as the Scottish Socialist Party, there can be a fairly significant difference between constituency votes and list votes.
posted by djlynch at 2:23 PM on January 21, 2006

Any proportional representation system installed in Canada is going to have to be based on the results of regional "super-ridings" rather than the national popular vote. These super-ridings might constitute anywhere from 3 to 10 existing ridings (and in fact, some variability might be beneficial -- there are only 3 ridings in the arctic after all) and would proportionally elect an equivalent number of MPs from submitted party lists. This would keep a certain level of local representation as an intact necessity, and provide an effective level of proportionality without giving every wacky fringe party a seat in the House.

Why hasn't the NDP made an issue out of it in this campaign? Probably because they made a calculation that it wasn't going to be a hot-button issue that would prove more than just a waste of their resources to talk about at length. It did get mentioned in the debates and does appear on their election platform, but somebody obviously decided that trying to have a frank discussion with Canadians VIA the media about electoral reform was not going to be a big vote getter. Since the latest projections peg them as close to doubling their current seat total, that probably wasn't a bad decision. There's little doubt that PR will find its way onto the agenda if they come out of this holding an effective balance of power in the next parliament.

As for the Green Party of Canada, increased exposure is just going to prove them to be well to the right of the Canadian mainstream on a wide-range of issues and riddled with internal incoherence. There's been a heavy toll of defections and resignations in the past year or so as Harris has operated the party more and more as his own personal fiefdom. The left side of the Canadian population will be tempted to vote Green until they actually see the non-environmental part of their platform. In fact, in its current state the Green Party would be far more likely, under better media exposure and with PR giving it a shot at actual seats, to steal votes from the Conservatives than from the NDP. While it undoubtedly gets a significant number of votes of left-leaning, environmentally-concerned citizens right now, that's a product of the esoteric nature of its right-libertarian social and economic platform, rather than of its supposed status as a left-wing competitor to the NDP.
posted by kowalski at 3:16 PM on January 21, 2006

on-post: that last line would make more sense if it read "rather than as a true measure of the accuracy of its supposed status as a left-wing competitor to the NDP."

i'm sick, forgive me for the overly complicated language.
posted by kowalski at 3:20 PM on January 21, 2006

Pseudoephedrine: The advantage of FPP is that it forces candidates to deal with local issues and take local opinion into account.

solid-one-love :I don't want to be represented by someone in another riding.

djlynch: One of the flaws I see in proportional representation, particularly on a nationwide scale, is that there is no guarantee that whoever's elected proportionally has any interest, much less a clue, of the populace of the ridings that helped get them there.

Those are problems with Mixed-Member Proportional systems. And I agree, they're terminal. That's why I would support a Single-Transferrable-Vote system. With STV you elect two or three members, from any party, by ranking them in order of preference. This has the following benefits:

• The results are closely proportional, but MPs are still beholden to their riding.
• You choose the representatives, not the parties
• Your ballot better represents your opinion: The fact that you really don't want a certain candidate is counted.

An assembly of BC citizens spent a year looking at all kinds of voting systems before recommending STV. Last year BC voted 57% in favour of STV, just short of the (arbitrary) 60% requirement.
posted by Popular Ethics at 3:30 PM on January 21, 2006

Oh, and Anthill: I could have lived without seeing that.
posted by Popular Ethics at 3:31 PM on January 21, 2006

Lemme repeat: This will never happen if it lessens Quebec's influence. Period.
posted by docgonzo at 3:52 PM on January 21, 2006

This picture hasn't gotten enough airplay nationally...

It's just a headswap of an animated .gif of Mr. Bean that circulated a few years ago. Far from special.


posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:30 PM on January 21, 2006

Anthill, I may not sleep tonight. Or tomorrow night. Possibly for a whole week.

The single transferable vote system would certainly change the dynamic of the Canadian system and from the numbers I've seen, the NDP would have the most to gain, probably at the expense of the Conservatives (more so, proportionately than the Liberals).

It would be interesting to see which party would benefit the most in Quebec.
posted by Zinger at 5:40 PM on January 21, 2006

It's just nice that you guys have your elections on a weekend.
posted by narebuc at 5:40 PM on January 21, 2006

We don't, it's on Monday.
posted by loquax at 5:42 PM on January 21, 2006

monday morning is kind of like the weekend.
posted by poweredbybeard at 6:04 PM on January 21, 2006

One thing that we do here in Canada, that my friends in the USA are jealous of, is every person gets 3 hours off work to go place their vote. Scheduling people that are on duty so they can take their 3 hours is just part of the normal election day.

*sigh* My vote for the NDP is going to be just like pissing in the ocean. I'll vote NDP even though I am really mad at Jack Layton for 1- helping precipitate this untimely election and 2- going around the public healthcare system and buying private medical care when HE needed elective surgery.

My vote will have no effect on the outcome; this riding is going Conservative. There'd be no change if we had proportional representation here.
posted by reflecked at 6:30 PM on January 21, 2006

To ease your anger, reflecked:

1. My theory is that Layton was told by PM that he would extract no further deals for propping up the Liberals. There were only a couple of months to go before Martin promised to go back to the polls, anyway. Given the reality his influence had run its course, Layton decided to extract the last benefit from the sit'n he could, trying to take credit for the government's fall.

2. I'm not convinced he knew he was buying private health care. Hey, it's not like he was going to an upper-class private clinic in Outremont, right?
posted by docgonzo at 6:45 PM on January 21, 2006

Decent point about Layton's influence waning in the face of the Lib's confidence post-Gomery inquiry, but I think he gambled and lost. It's true it wasn't blatant patronage at a private clinic, but do you think he REALLY believed he could get a minor hernia repair that fast? Geez, it's not like he was a hockey player or something.

:)
posted by reflecked at 6:57 PM on January 21, 2006

reflecked : One thing that we do here in Canada, that my friends in the USA are jealous of, is every person gets 3 hours off work to go place their vote.

I used to think so, but my workplace sent a memo out on Friday clarifying the rule. Because our work hours are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., and our polls close at 7:30 p.m. (Alberta), that 4:30-7:30 p.m. window is all that is required by law. Bummer.

See the relevant Elections Canada confirmation here (but I won't rat anyone out to the boss, I promise).
posted by hangashore at 7:22 PM on January 21, 2006

Any kind of PR system in Canada would have to do a few things:

1. Not reduce the relative political importance of Quebec.
2. Not give PEI a single additional seat - in fact, reducing representation would be fair.
3. Be administered on a province-by-province basis, which is problematic because any redistribution would not simply a federal issue but a provincial issue to be negotiated.
4. Retain the local-representation character of the current system. Frankly, I don't trust politicians who aren't specifically responsible to a specific, identifiable group to not be completely corrupt in Canada. Even under current conditions there are a lot of very lame candidates, and some of these are senior leaders in their parties (Jean Lapierre I'm looking at you).

Despite that, however, I think there is hope because there has been a lot of discussion about this kind of thing in Quebec, and they may take the lead in Canada (with BC, to be fair) and by being the early adopter, remove some of the political barriers to adoption for the ROC.

Also --- someone mentioned that Harper was proposing an elected Senate. This is technically true, but the language in the Conservative platform is so weak as to be meaningless.

About Layton's surgery - Docgonzo is right - the clinic Layton used is a nominally private, nonprofit clinic called the Shouldice Clinic that predates the public system and happily exists within it. It was grandfathered in to the system when it became public. You use your regular Ontario healthcare card to go there and they provide a specialized service of one particular kind of treatment (hernia surgery). It is absolutely not what anyone is referring to when they're talking about two-tier healthcare in Canada - really, it's just a cheap smear job on Layton.
posted by mikel at 9:22 PM on January 21, 2006

I do believe that time rule used to be 4 hours, but as hangashore rightly points out, it's never been time off work, just a set block of time, allowing one to vote.

Under proportional representation the Greens might get a few seats. My own riding will go NDP, and as a long-time NDP supporter, it will be nice to have my candidate win for once. But Harper scares the bejeebus out of me. I can't help but feel as though I'd be forced to vote Liberal , were it a two way race in my riding.

So proportional representation would begin to address those two concerns.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 9:34 PM on January 21, 2006

Be fair. jack layton was sent by his public health insurance to the clinic. It was not his choice therefore not his fault. You can vote NDP with pride, not desperation for gawd's sake.
posted by sundaymag at 2:48 AM on January 22, 2006

hmmm.

Our local NDP candidate didn't have that explanation about Layton's surgery (as of friday). He was still mildly embarrassed about it. Thanks.

The 4 hour thing is still happening here (west BC). Some people go to work late, some get off early. I don't know anyone who doesn't get this time off unless they work nightshift. Maybe y'all need better unions. :D

People have been talking strategic voting : "vote Liberal to defeat the Cons". That may have some effect in close races, but again.. not here, not this election.
posted by reflecked at 2:50 AM on January 22, 2006

I've always understood that the canadian system was this way by design. It simply attempts to find a compromise between proportional representation and breadth of representation.

I think the assumption was made that a government formed from lots of small pluralities is superior to one formed from a majority of people that could be based in one specific region. I tend to agree with that.

That said, I think the only reform the system really needs is to adopt preferencial voting. People are going to vote strategically anyways. This would at least let them give their 1.75$ to the party they actually believe in.
posted by Physics Package at 6:20 AM on January 22, 2006

This year the polls are open until 9:30pm, so the four-hour thing won't have any implication for most of us.
posted by clevershark at 7:41 AM on January 22, 2006

2. Not give PEI a single additional seat - in fact, reducing representation would be fair.

Sorry, one of the conditions of PEI entering confederation was that we be guaranteed 4 members in each house of Parliament.

Neur.

I wouldn't mind a Senate that was elected with some kind of PR system, and leaving the House of Commons as is.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:20 AM on January 22, 2006

Oops -- sorry about the weekend election thing....I should have looked that up -- BUT, elections should be held during weekend and, I think, over a couple days. It's silly to have such an important choice be decided during a weekday (and, worse, in the USA, where no such work provisions give people a chance to vote).
posted by narebuc at 9:22 AM on January 22, 2006

The Conservative proposal to elect Senators is weak by necessity. Such radical change that might approach something the slightest bit democratic would highly upset those in Eastern Canada.

A triple E Senate (equal, elected, effective) has been a longstanding desire of Western Canada. It is absolutely absurd that British Columbia with a population of 4 million people gets only 6 Senators while New Brunswick with a population of under 1 million gets 10 Senators.

Right now the Senate is highly unequal; unelected and a patronage mill for the Prime Minister; and uneffective as the Senators generally rubberstamp legislation as they feel that they have no legitimacy.

Reforming the Senate would require Constitutional reform with the approval of 7/10ths of the provinces with 1/2 of the population of Canada. So it will never happen.

Alberta has elected "Senators-in-waiting" several times, and Brian Mulroney appointed an the first elected Senator, Stan Waters, but both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin snubbed Alberta and appointed other people.

And Easterners wonder why there is such a thing as western alienation....

More information here.
posted by angrybeaver at 9:53 AM on January 22, 2006

Btw, instead of appointing democratically-elected Bert Brown to the Senate to represent Alberta, Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin chose former leader of the Alberta Liberal Party, Grant Mitchell.

Paul Martin is a patronage lush.
posted by angrybeaver at 9:58 AM on January 22, 2006

I just got back from Ottawa and Montreal and i was really really surprised by all the people who said they were going to vote for Harper/Conservatives--his really vague and evasive statements (that i saw on your news all week) on everything except for reducing the GST (see: same-sex marriage, abortion, giving provinces more power, doing something with health care, etc...) , and his party's hiding of some of the more wacko rightwing members would make me think twice if i were you guys. He seems like Bush-lite to me.

Martin is running a horrible campaign, i think, tho. Layton seems cool--i'd go with him if i didn't want to support Martin.
posted by amberglow at 11:28 AM on January 22, 2006

Oops -- sorry about the weekend election thing....I should have looked that up -- BUT, elections should be held during weekend and, I think, over a couple days. It's silly to have such an important choice be decided during a weekday (and, worse, in the USA, where no such work provisions give people a chance to vote).

I saw a thing on TV about advance voting, with a list of dates, and also that you can just walk in on Monday with proof of residency and some kind of ID--is that nationwide or just some places?
posted by amberglow at 11:30 AM on January 22, 2006

This just in, Liberals give patronage appointments to Liberals, and Conservatives give patronage appointments to Conservatives. Film at 11.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:51 AM on January 22, 2006

This just in, patronage appointments suck. And Harper promises to appoint elected Senators instead of rewarding his friends.
posted by angrybeaver at 12:05 PM on January 22, 2006

I'm sure he'll appoint senators elected by Albertans, but colour me surprised if he appoints a socialist elected in BC or a sovereigntist elected in Quebec.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:17 PM on January 22, 2006

And why wouldn't Harper appoint a Senator democratically elected by the people of a province?

CBC news article.
posted by angrybeaver at 12:33 PM on January 22, 2006

Candidates break promises. It can happen from time to time.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:38 PM on January 22, 2006

amberglow, I posted about the requirements for voter registration here. It is a very simple process, and the same process nationwide.
posted by Chuckles at 2:13 PM on January 22, 2006

I suppose I was being too glib there. To go into a little more detail:

Firstly, Harper will be appointing senators elected in the provinces. For him to hand the process over to electors completely requires changing the constitution, which is very unlikely. I also have a hard time believing that when Harper's wish for more democracy comes face to face with the prospect of appointing senators who stand for everything he does not, he will slide back into appointing someone who is more ideologically similar.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:38 PM on January 22, 2006

"I saw a thing on TV about advance voting, with a list of dates, and also that you can just walk in on Monday with proof of residency and some kind of ID--is that nationwide or just some places?"

Yes early voting allowed you to vote last Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Plus we have absentee balloting. My father voted practically as soon as the election was officially declared.
posted by Mitheral at 4:01 PM on January 22, 2006

I am very wary of an elected senate. The long term appointments guarantee a legislative body made of experienced lawmakers, who aren't subject to the fickle majority. If an unscrupulous PM were to exploit a panicked populace to amass power or to enact dangerous legislation (need I provide examples?), the senate provides a sober review.

This isn't just a thought experiment. When the government tried to enact badly thought through security measures following September 11, the senate sent it back.
posted by Popular Ethics at 5:28 PM on January 22, 2006

This year the polls are open until 9:30 pm, so the four-hour thing won't have any implication for most of us.

posted by clevershark at 7:41 AM PST on January 22 [!]

I was happy to see that, as I won't finish work tomorrow until about 7 pm. However, looking at the card I received in the mail from elections Canada; it says that the polls close at here in BC at 7 PM. I remember being ambushed by this in the last Federal Election, when i got to the polls at at 6:45 and almost missed my chance to vote.

In past elections I recall 8 pm as being the usual closing time. Do they stay open later in the East?
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 6:07 PM on January 22, 2006

My Trinity-Spadina (Toronto) card says 9:30pm. I think it is Elections Canada's fairly confusing way of making all the results come in at about the same time...
posted by Chuckles at 6:19 PM on January 22, 2006

Actually it is ensuring that people getting off work at 5 Pacific in BC still having a voice because the descision hasn't been made by Ontario and Quebec polls closing at 8 Eastern.
posted by Mitheral at 6:26 PM on January 22, 2006

PareidoliaticBoy: In past elections I recall 8 pm as being the usual closing time. Do they stay open later in the East?

Yep. They started that a couple of elections ago so that all polls accross the country would close within an hour of eachother. In the internet age, it's no longer possible* to enforce the publication ban that keeps Eastern poll results from influencing Western voters. So they changed the schedule.

*though they're still trying
posted by Popular Ethics at 6:28 PM on January 22, 2006

[expletive deleted]:

Firstly, Harper will be appointing senators elected in the provinces. For him to hand the process over to electors completely requires changing the constitution, which is very unlikely.

Yes, you are right that Senate appointments will remain the Prime Minister's perogative. But by appointing elected Senators, Harper is incrementally pushing the country towards Senate reform and showing the country that an elected Senate is not such a bad thing. If and when constitutional change does happen, the provinces would be more willing to accept Senate elections.

I also have a hard time believing that when Harper's wish for more democracy comes face to face with the prospect of appointing senators who stand for everything he does not, he will slide back into appointing someone who is more ideologically similar.

Harper has talked about Senate reform for a long time, so clearly it is an important issue for him. If he refuses to appoint a Senator who is his ideological opposite, he loses all credibility on the issue and Senate reform will take a gigantic step backwards. If Harper had made zero mention of Senate reform in the past and then suddenly pulled it out of his ass during a national debate, then yes, I too would have strong doubts about his beliefs on the issue.

Popular Ethics:

I am very wary of an elected senate. The long term appointments guarantee a legislative body made of experienced lawmakers, who aren't subject to the fickle majority.

The elected Senators would still remain long term appointments and not subject to the fickle electorate.

The Senators would also be more representative of the provinces instead representing Liberals or Conservatives.
posted by angrybeaver at 7:12 PM on January 22, 2006

The long term appointments guarantee a legislative body made of experienced lawmakers, who aren't subject to the fickle majority.

Are we talking about the same Senate? The one that wakes from its peaceful slumber once every 20-30 years to actually make any small difference in the running of this country? The one where Frank "The Big M" Mahovlich currently sits? If he's an experienced lawmaker, I'm a professional hockey player.
posted by loquax at 8:25 PM on January 22, 2006