Since Harpee has ascended to the leadership of the Tories, one theme that continues to pop up from time to time has been about a (non-Tory) coalition government in Ottawa. While my Oh Gawd Not Him inclination finds any alternative appealing, my democratic integrity sensor says “not on.” Here’s why.

But you didn’t say….

Coalition minority governments are not only common in many parts of the world, they’re the norm. Many of these jurisdictions use some form of proportional representation to elect government members; a few others use our first-past-the-post system.  Countries like Ireland, New Zealand, and Slovenia have had few (any?) majority governments in the last decade: formal coalition governments are the best way to have stable minority governments.

There are  a couple of differences in such places when compared to Canada. First, no one expects to get a majority, so the question of with whom a party will coalesce is always on the table, explictly or tacitly. Second, voters usually have some mechanism to prioritize their support through a ranking system if they so wish. Finally, in a number of such countries, parties campaign as coalition partners from the outset.

Our system  produces majority governments more often than minority ones, which leads the 2 major parties (Grits and Tories) to campaign towards a majority, leaving the idea of coalition off (their) table. As well, many voters in “swing” (i.e. contestable, changeable) ridings vote strategically–usually to keep someone else out: while many assume this only applies across the left/right divide, there are some who vote NDP to keep out Liberals, or Liberal to keep out the NDP–and they would be unhappy to see their democratic intention suddenly trumped by party leadership.

But most importantly, the Greens, Liberals, and NDP (the most plausible possible coalition partners) have not campaigned as a coalition. In fact, with the except of a handful of ridings, they are competing head-to-head-to-head across the country. So each candidate’s votes are counted separatedly anyway: were a consolidated campaign run (one candidate for their coalition per riding), voters would know precisely what they are voting for.

If the Tories were to win the most seats by even 1 seat, they get to form the government. The other parties can bring them down if they don’t like it. Or they can agitate for electoral reform.

A call for STV

Last year Ontario voters rejected a new electoral system called mixed member propotional (MMP). Among the concerns friends of mine in ON had were:

• A number of MLAs who were not required to provide consituent-level services (while most others did)
• If I don’t like the new system, I’m stuck with it (can’t vote how I always did)
• Further entrenchment of party power (only party list candidates could win the additional seats, not independents

Single Transferable Vote (STV) addresses these concerns to my liking–at least as it’s proposed here in BC, where we’ll be voting on it again in the 2009 provincial election. BC STV allows those who:

• Like the current system can vote for their one preferred candidate only
• Want to rank all candidates in their electoral district can do so
• Only want to rank some candidates can do so
• Want to support independents can do so
• Want to vote for a minor party to do so without fear of “wasting” their vote and letting the baddies in instead

It is, in other words, change for those who want–flexible change–and the status quo for those who like things the way they are.

If STV gets through this time in BC I can assure I will support the Greens and independents in the next provincial election in 2013.

The Economics Club of Toronto attracts the heavyweight speakers from politics and business, and so when I heard Gilles Duceppe would be speaking there, I was glad to go along to yesterday’s luncheon.

I had a chance to chat with Mr. Duceppe after his talk. He was warm, persuasive, and friendly. I joked that if he were a federalist, we’d all want to vote for him. His response: “Maybe I should open a franchise in Ontario.”

About 250 people were  at the Sheraton Centre to hear him. He said he hadn’t come to tell Canadians how to vote, but then made it clear that he was preaching to both Quebeckers and other Canadians that the Bloc represents the best opportunity to prevent Stephen Harper from getting a majority.

Our outstanding lady of letters, Margaret Atwood, was a guest at the head table and afterwards, told reporters that if she lived in Quebec she’d vote for the Bloc.

 “I’m here because Mr. Duceppe understands the contribution that culture makes to our economy. He understands $84-billion, and he understands 1.1 million jobs,” she said.

Duceppe received standing ovations both before and after he spoke, although a few remained in their seats at the end of his talk.

“Quebec is the only place in Canada that can still stop Stephen Harper,” Duceppe declared.

He stressed that the election wasn’t about sovereignty, but added:

“One day or another this problem must be solved. I’m more confident than ever that sovereignty is the best answer for Quebec and for Canada. Then, we’ll be able to go forward as two countries together.”

Duceppe reminded us of Pierre Trudeau’s declaration in 1976 that “separatism is dead.” Two months later, the PQ won its first term of office.

Duceppe talked a lot about culture, recognizing Margaret Atwood’s presence in the room.

“Not only is culture tremendously important to our national identity, but also a huge part of our economy — it’s worth $84 billion to Canada and gives jobs to a million people.” He slammed Stephen Harper’s recent remarks that “ordinary Canadians” aren’t interested in the arts.

“I’m here to defend both Quebec and Canadian cultures,” he said. “We don’t want to live on Planet Hollywood.”

I saw a few notables aorund the room, and had a chance to visit a bit with Judy Rebick, the left-wing activist and feminist who has a new book coming out soon.

In the event that the Conservatives are returned with another minority, she’d like to see an NDP-Liberal-Bloc accord that would keep Harper from forming a government. She points to the NDP-Liberal accord engineered between Bob Rae and David Peterson in Ontario in 1985 that let the Liberals govern even though the Conservatives had won the most seats in that election.

This may sound like grasping at straws, but Mackenzie King used the same tactic once federally. He governed successfully with Progressive party support when the Tories had won the most seats.

I’ll ponder Judy’s idea and maybe write about it next week.

www.wildaboutwriting.com