Minority with a majority

Yesterday afternoon, I sat in on some fascinating talks by eight of Canada's leading pollsters, at an event held by Canada's Market Research Intelligence Association. I'll have a full story coming in the paper in the days ahead (soon I hope), but in the meantime, I thought I'd share a snippet or two. 

All of the presentations were  great, but Greg Lyle, from Innovative Research Group, raised a question/conundrum  that would make an excellent conversation starter for weekend dinner parties. (If your guests are into politics.) I'll transcribe what he had to say here. See what you think.

First thing I want to do is talk about how the Tories won. Immediately following the election, it was noted that the Tories won the election campaign. Since then, though, it appears that Jack Layton did. [pause, then polite laughs from the crowd]And most of the debate is on how did the NDP breakthrough happen, and not so much how the Tories won. 

It's important to understand that the Tories have been winning by fighting on issues that most people *don't* support. If you think for a second, most of us, and certainly most of the people that are on the margins of whether they're going to vote or not think the way democracy works is that government does what most people want, most of the time.

But on most of the issues that mattered in this campaign, the Tories got a very strong mandate to do what the minority want.

At this point, Lyle put some charts on the screen, showing how Canadians felt about  whether corporate taxes should be raised to finance the increasing costs of health care.

Given a choice, most people would raise corporate taxes rather than trust trickle-down to work. However, if you look at how vote support works, if you think the way to go is to cut corporate taxes, you're a Tory, 84 per cent Tory. But if you are on the side of the spectrum, a few people are Tory and the others are split (among the other parties) halfway to Sunday.

And so long as you have this situation, which to me is reminiscent of the free-trade election... one party got all the people who supported free trade, the other parties split the opponents and free trade was policy.

That's not the way elections are supposed to work. That's not the way democracy is supposed to work. And what will get really interesting ... is what happens as the government consistently does a series of things that most people don't want. Where will those numbers go?

And the same thing happens if the government introduces new policies to deal with crime. Should it focus more on getting tougher on crime or should it focus more on dealing with the causes of crime? 57 per cent of Canadians say 'focus on the causes of crime.' Only 38 per cent say 'get tough on crime' -- almost identical to what the Tory vote was. Seventy-three per cent of the people who say get tough on crime voted Tory, only 16 per cent who said deal with the causes of crime.

And I did this on five different issues... and it's the same story, again and again. The topical issues in the debate, Tories were in the minority point of view, but they got all the votes of people who shared that point of view. So I'll just leave you to think about how the world's going to evolve in the next four years, if the Tories are going to do what they were elected to do, which is stuff that most people don't agree with.

 

 

 

Comments

[Radical Centrist]

Until we get rid of FPTP and adopt some form of PR, this situation isn't gong to change. That's what the problem is - our voting system wasn't meant for a multi-party democracy.

[Darwin O'Connor]

It's not exactly news that First Past the Post has this effect.

Wake me up with the Toronto Star gets with the program and supports PR.

[Kubera Jones]

Canada needs a true PR system as democracy has become distorted and non-representative. Media intransience on our systems failure is adding to the problem as seen by the failure to properly educate the public during the last MMP referendum, they have further exasperates this problem by refusing to accept and cover political movements like the Greens with any consistency.

[c irwin]

But the gentleman's analysis is a simplistic one - for example he assumes that voters have a polarized, 'either/ or' opinion on issue. Take crime - an issue used as an example here. I doubt most Canadians see it as was posed here - either focus on the causes of crime or the penalties. Good law does both as well as putting the security of Canadians first. He also appears to be ignoring personality - a factor which appears to have mattered significantly to the NDP, and perhaps in a negative way to the Liberals. As well to assume that spending on health care would increase if corporate taxes did is assuming a spending decision that might not be made. Why not spend those increased revenues (if that indeed would be the result) on increasing the military or aid to developing countries or education or paying down our very considerable debt, etc? This guy gets paid big bucks to do this kind of analysis I'm betting. So does Ms Delacourt to provide a thoughtful and critical response to his shell game.

[Lind sheppard]

Useful analysis but as others have already noted, there is no other solution to this very serious problem than to reform the vioting system and make it proportional...also a much better solution than the vain hope that the parties will merge. And yes, when will the Star get on side?

[Anne Peterson]

Proportional representation please, before we are so polarized we can't function at all. Now they (the cons) attack the CBC, such a big part of my life all my life, and sink the wheat board (I am long gone from Alberta but still think much like a farmer). I makes me angry what they are doing by going so against democratic values, so that when I watch them speak on question period or political shows I almost feel like gagging. I have not one tiny iota of trust in them. Is this how it should go in Canada. Don't think so.

[Gabby in QC]

There’s an apt description for people who want to change a system when it’s not working to their advantage … they’re sore losers.
Up until the Conservatives came to power, it was generally accepted wisdom that a percentage close to or above 40% usually meant a majority government. But now, a party obtaining a percentage below an absolute majority is somehow deemed an illegitimate result … though only if the winning party is Conservative.
Were the same objections raised in 1896 when Wilfrid Laurier led a majority government despite getting a smaller % of the popular vote? (The Liberals 41.37% vs the Conservatives 48.17% Voter turn-out: 62.9%)
Were the same objections raised in 1997, when the Liberals were hailed for obtaining a second majority, even though it was with only 38.46% of the popular vote? (The Liberals 38.46% vs Reform 19.35% + Bloc 10.67% + NDP 11.05% + PC 18.84% Voter turnout: 67.0%)
Only 6 out of 41 federal elections have resulted in absolute majorities -- more than 50% -- 3 of them Liberal and 3 Progressive Conservative. The last time there was an absolute majority was with the Progressive Conservatives in 1984.
Face it, folks: the reality is that the FPTP system has worked until now, has not been questioned, it has been thought quite legitimate when those people like Greg Lyle were on the winning side. But now that they’re no longer in that position, well then, it means the system is flawed and requires “fixing.”
Sore losers!

[Darwin O'Connor]

I'm very disappointed the Manitoba NDP government hasn't done anything to implement proportional representation.

I condemn provincial governments of all stripes who have failed to act on democratic reform. I condemn the BC, PEI and Ontario governments a little less as they held referendums, but in a manner that give the status quo an unjustified advantage.