In Canada's history, how many governments have been formed by opposition?

[shockedcanadian]

Since this is the raving talk of the day, how often has this happened in the past? To be honest I don't like the idea, I would prefer a minority winner with clear opposition parties keeping them in check, for the reason I describe below.

I look at this as a similar situation where an MP is elected under one party banner and decides to change parties after being elected. It does not sit well with voters. Such backroom deals and arrangements spell doom for any party in the future who does not obtain 50%+ of the vote. We will have constant opposition parties constantly merging, forming, splitting and making arrangements to suit their desire for power. This open up a dangerous can of worms. Who is to say that the Conservatives (or any other party) wouldn't just absorb another party to ensure they obtain a Majority. Would this be acceptable to everyone if it occurred?


I, more than most, have a reason to dislike the Conservative government as I have had personal and direct dealings with many appointed ministers due to my issue with CSIS and the RCMP. These issues are tangible which have directly affected me, not abstract policies. I am definitely apolitical, letting each party and its message and policy's dictate who I hope will win in any given election year. Regardless of my personal opinion and frustration dealing with the most secretive and spend happy government in Canadian history, I would like to think that our democracy would provide some allowances without turning the system into a system lacking leaders and encouraging "moving to the highest bidder". This would encourage corruption at the highest level if it became a rampant m.o of our political system.

[iverglas]

1. voters need educating

Well, about a whole lot of things, but specifically about the nature of the CANADIAN system of government. Unfortunately, elections are not times to educate people.

Canadians do not elect an executive. We elect individual legislators. The portion of the executive consisting of the PM and ministers are then selected from among the legislators elected to the House of Commons -- by those legislators. The House selects the PM, who selects the ministers.

That is what is meant by the confidence of the House.

Political parties simply don't come into it. The legislator with the confidence of the most members is entitled to form a government as PM. Period.

There is nothing remotely similar to floor-crossing in this process.

In a House that consists of legislators from four parties in which no party has a majority of seats -- i.e. no legislator has automatic confidence of a majority of members -- no person or party was elected to govern. In fact, the same is true of a House in which there is a majority. Voters in each riding elected a member.

If my riding elects an NDP member (which it will), and the Conservative Party gets a plurality of seats, has Canada elected a Conservative government? Absolutely not.

In practical terms, yes, backroom deals are not the way to do it. And in previous minority governments, e.g. Liberal with NDP support, I don't recall backroom deals. The recent attempted coalition was not a backroom deal, it was public and clear.

"Who is to say that the Conservatives (or any other party) wouldn't just absorb another party to ensure they obtain a Majority."

What does that mean? Have they acquired super absorption powers?

"We will have constant opposition parties constantly merging, forming, splitting and making arrangements to suit their desire for power."

Canada has a history of parties coming and going, merging and reforming. Most countries do. Personally, I'd have it no other way. Otherwise, we'd look like the US has looked for decades: a two-party system composed of often virtually indistinguishable people and policies.

You can call it "to suit their desire for power" if you want, but I don't have to agree. More often it suits the circumstances of the day, as issues that parties are sometimes organized around wax and wane, or depends on changes within parties that make them more or less compatible with other parties.

There are irreconcilable differences in the views of the electorate. They are represented by multiple parties. That's Canada.

"I would like to think that our democracy would provide some allowances without turning the system into a system lacking leaders and encouraging 'moving to the highest bidder'."

I have no idea what that means. Parties bidding for the support of other parties in the House? Good thing, I say. Better than majority governments forcing their legislative agenda onto an electorate when more than half of that electorate may have voted against that party and its agenda.

That bidding got us universal health care, public pensions, and all the other "bids" that the Liberals have had to offer the NDP in the past in order to maintain confidence.

The Conservatives in this round have never bid. They maintained their grip on confidence based purely on their knowledge that the other parties, for various reasons, did not want an election. And when the Conservatives decided they wanted an election (even though they're the ones who brought in the fixed-term rule), they manipulated events to go that way -- by making no effort to maintain the confidence of the House and doing everything to lose it. And then, like the true demagogues they are, painting the opposition as the villains, when in fact the opposition was so weak that all it had done all along was nothing, and let itself be manipulated throughout.

I would have been very happy with a Liberal minority government at the end of this election, no matter how it came about and whether or not the Conservatives had the plurality of seats. Because I would have been one of the majority of Canadians who voted for a party that was not the Conservative Party, and I believe that that majority is entirely entitled to see its choices produce a government.

But the way things are going, hmm, I might not have to settle for that ... ;)

[shockedcanadian]

2. I will clarify more specifically

When I suggest the Conservatives absorb another party, I mean they talk to the third place party, or even the 4th place party and tell them, "hey, here's an idea, you are an also-ran, while we are a popular choice with the nation. Why don't you join my team and then we can rule together without any barriers. We can both get what we need done and it cannot be stopped". They can simply negotiate as the moment suits them and then down the road split again if they don't see eye to eye. You suggest that you are fine with this, were you fine with it when the Conservatives were trying to topple Paul Martin?

When I suggest stealing other seats to the highest bidder, I am referring to basic bribes. Whoever can offer them the most power and maybe even some form of payment to join a party. If we have a cycle of merges after every election all parties will face the same fears, that winning the election will have little meaning, with such fears will come desperation with desperation comes drastic measures. It's not as if they will go to jail if they get caught. We have had multiple million and even BILLION dollars scandals between the Liberals and Conservative governments with nary a lashing for the offending individuals (yes, I am one of the disenchanted in this country).

I am not saying this scenario is occurring now, but corruption exists and will always exists, to what extent and how deep will this corruption exist under the right political circumstances?

This potential situation undermines the democratic process in my opinion. Or, as I have said before, we will probably have an American system with only two legitimate parties running and having a hope every election. In my opinion it is worse to have only two options than numerous, however, this will probably be the outcome.

[iverglas]

3. I realize this discussion is pointless

When I suggest the Conservatives absorb another party, I mean they talk to the third place party, or even the 4th place party and tell them, "hey, here's an idea, you are an also-ran, while we are a popular choice with the nation. Why don't you join my team and then we can rule together without any barriers. We can both get what we need done and it cannot be stopped".

So? If the Conservatives can actually find another party with which it can produce a shared legislative agenda, why not?

It's what has happened with Liberal minority governments with NDP support in the House. What's the big deal?

It's what got us universal health care and public pensions in that case. If the Conservatives could find a like-minded party in the House, it might get us capital punishment and criminalization of abortion. But if a majority in the House supported that, that's what we get. (Fortunately we have a constitution and a Supreme Court as backup.)

I don't see much point in silly hypothetical scenarios, myself.

When I suggest stealing other seats to the highest bidder, I am referring to basic bribes. Whoever can offer them the most power and maybe even some form of payment to join a party.

And we have Belinda Stronach as our case in point. Again, I simply have no idea where you're going with this. Certainly having one's minority become a majority (or a minority with sufficient support to govern) as a result of floor-crossing would sit very badly with the voters -- unless it turned out to be a good government.