you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 4 months ago* (5 children)

we are moving closer to a structurally codified duopoly

Not true. It just happens that in the last election we got a more duopolistic parliament than usual. There is no general trend however. Here is the list of all parliament makeups since confederation. You would have to go back to the 1958-1962 parliament for a two official party parliament and even then it was just that the CCF only had 8 MPs and so didn't have official party status. To find a parliament with legitimately only 2 parties, you have to go all the way back to the 1918-1921 parliament.

Our system consistently produces 3rd and 4th parties, and operates comfortably in minority governments.

To be 100% clear, I am not making a case against proportional representation. It is absolutely the right way to go. Electoral reform is absolutely essential and we should be thiniking out of the box to deepen and strengthen our democratic institutions, e.g., replacing the unelected senate with either a kind of citizen jury via sortition or straight up the Assembly of First Nations (now that would be something :) ) and definitely a massive increase in the number of MPs, to massively increase the winning coaltion (ratio W/S). There is zero reason why 19th century technological constraints (send a bunch of dudes to sit around in a big room) should define what 21st century mass democracy should look like.

What I'm pushing back against is not electoral reform. I'm pushing back on seeing Canadian politics through a US lens. Liberals especially loooove that lens because it means they get to use the craziness of the Poilievrites to blackmail everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 4 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    Dismissing any critique as just looking through a US lens

    Lemme stop you right there. I don’t «dismiss any critique.» I very specifically clarified that my pushback is against a particular Liberal narrative. I’m not here to die on some hill defending Canadian institutions.

    Outside of the Liberal narrative, I don't know if we ultimately disagree in any kind of profoundly irreconcilable way. We agree on like 99% of stuff. I have zero debate about your diagnosis of the morbidities of the Canadian system.

    But empirically, the claim that «we are moving closer to a structurally codified duopoly» just doesn't hold up. Yes, it is true that our multiparty system does have a narrow overton window of economic policy, but that's not a «structurally codified duopoly». You are describing elite consensus/corporate capture, not duopoly. There is no inexorable march towards a Democrats-vs-Republicans system.

    The distinction matters by the way. Because if the problem is a structural duopoly, the solution is mainly electoral-system reform. (And yes, of course I support that.)

    But if the problem is a narrow economic Overton window under conditions of corporate power, then PR helps but is not a solution. We also need labour power, movement infrastructure, public-interest media, anti-monopoly policy, campaign finance pressure, tenant organization, public banking, serious tax reform, and parties willing to fight capital rather than merely manage its tantrums.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments