First Past the Post: a Mandate to Rule?

[Colpy]

Okay, as is my habit, I've gone crazy...............

Election results that resulted in MAJORITY governments in Canada;

1945: Liberals win 177 out of 245 seats with 39.78% of the vote.

1949: Liberals win 191 out of 262 seats with 49.15% of the vote.

1953: Liberals win 169 out of 265 seats with 48.43% of the vote.

1958: Progressive Conservatives win 208 out of 265 seats with 53.66% of the vote.

1968: Liberals win 154 out of 264 seats with 45.37% of the vote.

1974: Liberals win 141 out of 264 seats with 43.15% of the vote.

1980: Liberals win 147 out of 282 seats with 44.34% of the vote.

1984: Progressive Conservatives win 211 out of 282 seats with 50.03% of the vote.

1988: Progressive Conservatives win 169 out of 282 seats with 43.0% of the vote.

1993: Liberals win 177 out of 295 seats with 41.24% of the vote.

1997: Liberals win 155 out of 301 seats with 38.5% of the vote.

2000: Liberals win 172 out of 301 seats with 40.85% of the vote.

2011: Conservatives win 166 out of 308 seats with 39.62% of the vote.

Please note that the 50% of the vote mark has been met exactly TWICE in the last 70 years......out of 13 majority governments.

Interestingly, both times were in favour of Progressive Conservative governments.

Now.......let's put the Harper mandate thing to rest..........if Willy King had the right to fight the greatest war in history with less than 50%, if Trudeau had the right to radically change the direction of the nation with less than 50%, if Chretien had the right to destroy our military and institute expensive, unconstitutional and useless gun control with less than 50%....

Then Harper has the mandate to rebuild the military and restructure the gun control regimen with his majority.......

That is simply just and correct under the first past the post system.....and I would welcome reform of that system........but until it is reformed with the consent of the people it is completely valid.

 

[CDNBear]

This should prove interesting...

 

[petros]

From 1945 to present, how many parties ran in each election and what as voter turn out for each?

 

[Colpy]

From 1945 to present, how many parties ran in each election and what as voter turn out for each?

Geez....do ya want me to write a book??? Even I'm not THAT crazy.........

List of Canadian federal general elections - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down to the list, then click on the election number at the left for details of a specific election........


What I did notice was that the Liberal Party ruled Canada for 45 out of the last 66 years......without ever getting a 50% mandate. Trudeau never even came close!!!!

 

[SLM]

That is simply just and correct under the first past the post system.....and I would welcome reform of that system........but until it is reformed with the consent of the people it is completely valid.

Before the thread is over run, just want to say that I agree on both points here. A reform of FPTP would be welcome and yes, it is the system we have so it is completely valid.

Imo, those who advocate for the former are truly interested in changing the system. Those who only gripe about it's validity when faced with actions they disagree with are just sore losers.

Also, as a accountant, I like the use of numbers to prove a point. Just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

 

[VanIsle]

I wonder how it affected the percentages when women were allowed the vote:

As social reformers, women learned how to use the tools - petitions, publicity, private contacts [e.g. the men they knew] and lobbying- that were used to gain the vote.
In 1916, the first hard-won victory came in Manitoba after a new provincial government which supported women's suffrage was elected in the summer of 1915. Taking nothing for granted, the Manitoba Political Equality League presented two petitions to the new Premier. One petition contained 39,584 names. The second contained 4,250 names, all collected by Mrs. Amelia Burritt of Sturgeon Creek, Manitoba. Mrs. Burritt, included seated on the right in the photograph here, was 94 years old! She must have felt strongly about the vote for a century. On January 28, 1916, women in Manitoba ceased to be disqualified from voting and holding office solely because they were women.

• Alberta and Saskatchewan followed later in 1916,
• British Columbia in 1917,
• Ontario in 1917 (women could not hold office until 1919),
• Nova Scotia in 1918,
• New Brunswick in 1918 (women could not hold office until 1934),
• Prince Edward Island in 1922,
• Newfoundland in 1925 and
• Quebec in 1940.
  

The first women to be given the vote in federal elections were nurses serving in World War One. In 1917, women who were British subjects and who were wives, widows, mothers, sisters and daughters of those who had served or were serving in the Canadian or British military or naval forces were given the vote in federal elections. At the same time, people born in foreign countries and naturalized since 1902, or conscientious objectors, lost the right to vote. Finally in March 1918, all women who were otherwise qualified could vote in federal elections, and by 1920 qualified women could hold elected public office.
Native women covered by the Indian Act were prohibited by federal legislation from voting for band councils until 1951, and in federal elections until 1960. Most women of colour - Chinese women, "Hindu" or East Indian women, Japanese women - were prohibited from voting at the provincial and federal level until the late 1940s.

 

[TenPenny]

Those who complain about FPTP and worship the US system should consider that the US President is pretty much elected by a FPTP system.

 

[Machjo]

Okay, as is my habit, I've gone crazy...............

Election results that resulted in MAJORITY governments in Canada;

1945: Liberals win 177 out of 245 seats with 39.78% of the vote.

1949: Liberals win 191 out of 262 seats with 49.15% of the vote.

1953: Liberals win 169 out of 265 seats with 48.43% of the vote.

1958: Progressive Conservatives win 208 out of 265 seats with 53.66% of the vote.

1968: Liberals win 154 out of 264 seats with 45.37% of the vote.

1974: Liberals win 141 out of 264 seats with 43.15% of the vote.

1980: Liberals win 147 out of 282 seats with 44.34% of the vote.

1984: Progressive Conservatives win 211 out of 282 seats with 50.03% of the vote.

1988: Progressive Conservatives win 169 out of 282 seats with 43.0% of the vote.

1993: Liberals win 177 out of 295 seats with 41.24% of the vote.

1997: Liberals win 155 out of 301 seats with 38.5% of the vote.

2000: Liberals win 172 out of 301 seats with 40.85% of the vote.

2011: Conservatives win 166 out of 308 seats with 39.62% of the vote.

Please note that the 50% of the vote mark has been met exactly TWICE in the last 70 years......out of 13 majority governments.

Interestingly, both times were in favour of Progressive Conservative governments.

Now.......let's put the Harper mandate thing to rest..........if Willy King had the right to fight the greatest war in history with less than 50%, if Trudeau had the right to radically change the direction of the nation with less than 50%, if Chretien had the right to destroy our military and institute expensive, unconstitutional and useless gun control with less than 50%....

Then Harper has the mandate to rebuild the military and restructure the gun control regimen with his majority.......

That is simply just and correct under the first past the post system.....and I would welcome reform of that system........but until it is reformed with the consent of the people it is completely valid.

Here's how I would look at it:

A first-past-the -post system gives no political party any mandate whatsoever because strictly speaking you're voting for an MP, not a party. What it does do though is give individual MPs a mandate from their local constituents to govern collectively. By implication, these MPs have a mandate to form coalitions as appropriate (though granted in a party system, the "coalitions" are often set prior to the election, though even then MPs are still free to withdraw from their party at any time). As long as we remember that we are in fact electing MPs and not parties, and that those MPs are free to join or leave any party at any time, then I'd say those Mps are free to vote as they see fit. So, if a majority of MPs vote in favour of a Bill or support the standing government, that is their prerogative, answerable to their local constituents come next election.

I think the real problem comes from the party system which makes the distinction between MPs and parties a little murky. This is where a non-partisan system like that of Nunavut would be preferable. Imagine all MPs running as independent MPs as they do in nunavut, and then elect the Prime Minister. If the majority of Parliament decided then to vote for Harper, that would be their prerogative.

So while I can certainly agree with going to a non-partisan system so as to clear up the mud, I'm not in favour of pro-rep since it merely gives political parties even more power than they currently have. I prefer voting for an MP than a party myself, and defend my MP's freedom of association.

But I will say that when any party says thae people gave it a mandate, it has no clue what it's talking about seeing that under FPTP no party has received a single vote anyway, only MP get votes.

 

[Colpy]

Here's how I would look at it:

A first-past-the -post system gives no political party any mandate whatsoever because strictly speaking you're voting for an MP, not a party. What it does do though is give individual MPs a mandate from their local constituents to govern collectively. By implication, these MPs have a mandate to form coalitions as appropriate (though granted in a party system, the "coalitions" are often set prior to the election, though even then MPs are still free to withdraw from their party at any time). As long as we remember that we are in fact electing MPs and not parties, and that those MPs are free to join or leave any party at any time, then I'd say those Mps are free to vote as they see fit. So, if a majority of MPs vote in favour of a Bill or support the standing government, that is their prerogative, answerable to their local constituents come next election.

I think the real problem comes from the party system which makes the distinction between MPs and parties a little murky. This is where a non-partisan system like that of Nunavut would be preferable. Imagine all MPs running as independent MPs as they do in nunavut, and then elect the Prime Minister. If the majority of Parliament decided then to vote for Harper, that would be their prerogative.

So while I can certainly agree with going to a non-partisan system so as to clear up the mud, I'm not in favour of pro-rep since it merely gives political parties even more power than they currently have. I prefer voting for an MP than a party myself, and defend my MP's freedom of association.

But I will say that when any party says thae people gave it a mandate, it has no clue what it's talking about seeing that under FPTP no party has received a single vote anyway, only MP get votes.

Exactly correct.........

 

[mentalfloss]

Of course a plurality or fptp is valid.

It's just not as democratic as proportional representation.

We should be voting for successful platforms (what people do), not leaders (who people are).

 

[Colpy]

Of course a plurality or fptp is valid.

It's just not as democratic as proportional representation.

We should be voting for successful platforms (what people do), not leaders (who people are).

All true enough......

I don't think anyone is voting on Harper's charisma and sunny personality...........my guess is the vast majority of Conservative votes are for ideology and the platform.

Now, let's talk about the Quebecois, the NDP, and the late Jack.........who I do think gained massive support for his personality, despite the NDP platform.

 

[Machjo]

Those who complain about FPTP and worship the US system should consider that the US President is pretty much elected by a FPTP system.

I would argue there are two ways of criticising the FPTP system.

One way is the more common one (i.e. some people believe we ought to be voting for a party, not an MP, and that as such we should scrap FPTP and adopt a pro-rep system).

Another group (the one I fall into) has no issue with FPTP per se, but rather the partisanship that's crept into it. Remove the partisanship and have them run as independants like in Nunavut and then we're talking.

 

[Tonington]

That is simply just and correct under the first past the post system.....and I would welcome reform of that system........but until it is reformed with the consent of the people it is completely valid.

How much consent? 50% +1? :lol:

 

[WLDB]

Interestingly, both times were in favour of Progressive Conservative governments.

Now.......let's put the Harper mandate thing to rest..........if Willy King had the right to fight the greatest war in history with less than 50%, if Trudeau had the right to radically change the direction of the nation with less than 50%, if Chretien had the right to destroy our military and institute expensive, unconstitutional and useless gun control with less than 50%....

Then Harper has the mandate to rebuild the military and restructure the gun control regimen with his majority.......

That is simply just and correct under the first past the post system.....and I would welcome reform of that system........but until it is reformed with the consent of the people it is completely valid.

Legally yes, they all had the right to do so under this system. But the system itself makes no sense. None of them should have been able to do any of what they did unilaterally.

As for the PC's winning over 50% twice, well, all right. I'd take the PC's over the current incarnation of the Conservative Party.

 

[Machjo]

In the defence of supporters of pro-rep, I can certainly understand the frustration stemming from the misleading system giving the false impression that we're voting party when we're really voting candidate. Asd long as this continues, guaranteed that support fro pro-rep can only grow. If you want to reduce popular support for pro-rep, you'll have to make the system less partisan by removing party names from ballots, introducing a caucus of the house, and have all candidates run as independents. If we intend to start off slowly and gradually, then removing party names from ballots would be a small step in the right direction.

 

[wulfie68]

Legally yes, they all had the right to do so under this system. But the system itself makes no sense. None of them should have been able to do any of what they did unilaterally.

It does make sense; it may have made even more sense, back in the mid-19th century, before parties were as permanent as they are today but it still makes sense. People don't like the fact that popular vote can be ignored but there are at least as many issues with proportional representation, particularly when it comes to what region gets stuck with the equalization representatives from a party they didn't want. I believe, like Machjo, that the best solution would be removal of the parties rather than the overall system... but thats not likely to happen either.

 

[WLDB]

It does make sense; it may have made even more sense, back in the mid-19th century, before parties were as permanent as they are today but it still makes sense. People don't like the fact that popular vote can be ignored but there are at least as many issues with proportional representation, particularly when it comes to what region gets stuck with the equalization representatives from a party they didn't want. I believe, like Machjo, that the best solution would be removal of the parties rather than the overall system... but thats not likely to happen either.

It would be impossible to get rid of the parties unless they voluntarily disbanded. One can't legislate them out of existence. I'm more in favor of single transferable vote or instant run off elections to ensure the winning candidate gets at least 50% in their riding. Its the way the speaker of the house is elected, its the way the party leaders are elected, why not the MPs themselves? Also it'd be nice to ban whipped votes. An MP should first and foremost be a representative for their riding, not a pawn in a partisan agenda.

 

[Corduroy]

Now.......let's put the Harper mandate thing to rest..........if Willy King had the right to fight the greatest war in history with less than 50%, if Trudeau had the right to radically change the direction of the nation with less than 50%, if Chretien had the right to destroy our military and institute expensive, unconstitutional and useless gun control with less than 50%....

Then Harper has the mandate to rebuild the military and restructure the gun control regimen with his majority.......

Were people arguing otherwise?

 

[Machjo]

It would be impossible to get rid of the parties unless they voluntarily disbanded. One can't legislate them out of existence. I'm more in favor of single transferable vote or instant run off elections to ensure the winning candidate gets at least 50% in their riding. Its the way the speaker of the house is elected, its the way the party leaders are elected, why not the MPs themselves? Also it'd be nice to ban whipped votes. An MP should first and foremost be a representative for their riding, not a pawn in a partisan agenda.

nunavut is one of a few non-partisan jurisdictions. The Premier is elected by the elected representatives, thus ensuring he truly represents the House of elected representatives and not his party.

If it can be done in some jurisdictions, why not in others?

 

[WLDB]

nunavut is one of a few non-partisan jurisdictions. The Premier is elected by the elected representatives, thus ensuring he truly represents the House of elected representatives and not his party.

If it can be done in some jurisdictions, why not in others?

Probably the size of the population. Nunavut's entire population is the size of a very small city or large town. Most municipalities don't have a party system either. Parties allow various people with similar political beliefs to band together, help each other and raise money. FPTP would do really well with a two party system but I doubt the country would.