Canada’s new party system?

Canada held snap elections yesterday in which Steven Harper’s Conservative Party managed to secure a parliamentary majority. The New Democratic Party (NDP) essentially supplanted the Liberals as the left opposition in the country, while the center-left Liberals, who had dominated Canadian life for decades, saw their seat total plummet.  Likewise, the separatist Bloq Quebecois were reduced to a small four seats.

Canada isn’t normally thought to be an interesting country (Something which they should take as a complement; interesting countries tend to have more problems!) but buried in the lackluster coverage are a few gems worth election wonks pondering over.  The first is the fact that the final results were far different than initial polling would suggest.  When snap elections were called in March, the Liberals were still the leading opposition party with the NDP solidly behind.  This is pretty strong evidence that the campaign mattered. Not shocking to many, but certainly to those who are aware of the significant  literature that suggests campaigns are really only important at the margins. Recall the recent British elections where the Liberal Democrats under Nick Clegg’s leadership surged in the polls, only to wind up right where they started when the results were tallied.   The LibDem’s performance, of course, may be partially attributable to tactical voting, which brings me to my next point: this election creates a party system in Canada more in line with Duverger’s Law.

In Les Partis Politique, Marice Duverger explained how plurality votes in single-member districts would bring the effective number of competitive candidates to two. ‘Duverger’s Law’ as it was dubbed by William Riker  was taken by some to mean that (1) SMD systems would always produce only two viable parties, and (2) that there would only be two effective parties at the national level.  These two misconceptions have led many to incorrectly state that Canada and India are proof that Duverger’s law has been broken.   The problem, I think, is that what Duverger was explaining wasn’t really a law so much as a force, and is in this respect completely true.   Gary Cox in Making Votes Count does a good job of rescuing Duverger while expanding on his theory with his ever helpful equation, N+1, to predict an electoral system’s impact on the number of candidates.  (N being the number of available seats in the district, the number of candidates would be one more).   A quick glance at the results seem to indicate that Duverger’s Force was certainly in effect.  I’m guessing once the NDP took the mantle of the leading non-conservative party, voters evaluated it as their best option in a single member district.  It’s hard to say if Canada’s party system will stay like this after the next election, but I think there is a decent amount here for us to digest for now.

Cross posted at Ahwa Talk.

These people are insane

Our topic for today is the insane Olympic sport of Skeleton. The name alone suggests that something is not quite right with this sport. IMHO, these people are nuts. The sport – if you can call it that – essentially entails sliding down an ice track on a piece of plastic, head first, at 70 miles per hour. That’s it. The skeleton sled has no breaks or steering mechanism. It’s not much different than a lunch tray with handles and blades on the bottom, as the picture below shows. This is nuts.

FYI, Latvia is expected to pick up the men’s gold medal and Canada is expected to win the women’s one.

Whoops, my tray!

Obama way behind the curve on democracy

Around the world, we are witnessing new and ambitious strategies to advance democracy.  The European Union recently released the EU Agenda for Action on Democracy Support.  The strategy boldly states that, “everyone has the right to take part in government” and that “democracy has evolved into a universal value.”  The Government of Canada has announced it will set up a new democracy assistance organization, the Canadian Centre for Advancing Democracy.  The UN Democracy Fund has just announced its fourth round of funding.  And what of the Obama administration?  Entrepreneurship, Science and Technology, and Education.  (sigh)  These things are fine, but the fall far short of affirming that democracy is a universal value.

President Obama uses stirring rhetoric on democracy, such as his recent speech on Afghanistan at West Point:

…we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.

Sorry Mr. President, the road to freedom, justice, and opportunity is not through entrepreneurship, science and technology, and education.  It’s through democracy.  Speaking out on behalf of entrepreneurship, science and technology, and education doesn’t bring moral authority.  Standing up for democracy brings moral authority.  I expect that the Obama administration will eventually come around to supporting democracy more forthrightly.  Until they do, I will pound away at them on it.  After all, it’s my right in a democracy.

Michael Allen at Democracy Digest has more.