Some pro-lifers believe that proportional representation will result in the appointment of Family Coalition Party members at the provincial level and Christian Heritage Party candidates at the federal level. Sadly, neither party has reached the minimum 3% level of province-wide support that most proportional representation systems require to garner seats in parliament. Until there is a sea change in their support, the number of FCP/CHP elected officials would be negligible to effect change.One may add that the threshold was set to 3% precisely because no small party was able to get that many votes in decades. We know that the Green Party of Ontario came quite close to 3% in the past election. But not many remember that Family Coalition Party too came very close to a 3% threshold, winning 2.76% of the vote in the 1990 election.(Source)
People voted FCP despite the perception that it draws votes away from the PC and makes it easier for a Liberal or NDP candidate to win the riding. There were only 68 FCP candidates running in the 1990 election, thus nearly half of Ontario voters (those in the remaining 62 ridings) didn't even have a Family Coalition Party candidate on the ballot. Yet FCP still won over 110,000 votes.
If the Mixed-Member Proportional system had been used back then; if the Family Coalition Party name had been listed on each ballot among with other parties; if the voters had been able to make their choice without worrying about vote splitting, those numbers could have doubled. Winning 220,000 - 250,000 votes (5.5% to 6% province-wide) would have entitled FCP to 7 or 8 seats. Even if it hadn't been enough seats for the official party status, it would have been enough voices to make a difference in a minority Parliament.
Yes, since 1990 many FCP supporters chose to vote strategically. Even in the 2003 election many of them still considered the Progressive Conservatives to be far lesser evil than the Liberals. But now, when John Tory's leadership made the Ontario PCs virtually indistinguishable from the Liberals (not just socially but also fiscally) and with the left of centre vote being split three ways (Liberals, NDP, Green), I won't be surprised if at least one of the FCP candidates manages to win a local seat in this upcoming election.
Experience in other countries shows that when a "single-issue" party like the FCP do win seats, they still make NO progress on tier issue unless other parties pick it up, sufficient to be a Parliamentary majority.
ReplyDeleteOther parties will say: "We want to work with you on a number of issues, but we aren't supporting THAT one." Then it is up to the FCP to decide if they want to be frozen out or not. They can't hold anyone's feet to the fire on the pro-life issue as every other party opposes their view. hey can't use any other issue to leverage this one as this is NOT an issue other parties will budge one. It's too hot. At the end of the day, 5 MPPs or whatever, can not out vote the other 124.
To hold the "balance of power" they would need to ally with at least ONE of the major parties.....and then it is not a small party dictating to others, it's a collection of parties who represent a LOT of voters. That democracy thing again.
So unless one or other of the two majors allies with FCP, their pet issue would never see daylight. Given the issue, neither of the two majors would risk taking on this FCP position.
First of all - why do you think the FCP is a single-issue party? If you've never bothered to read the FCP policies it doesn't mean they don't exist.
ReplyDeleteNext, do you remember how many MPs did it take to turn the tide in the 2005 Federal budget vote?
I mentioned the alternative outcome of the 1990 election. In 1995 (if MMP had been used back then) the PC would have come 4 or 5 seats short of the majority. With Family Coalition Party name appearing on every ballot (not just in 55 ridings out of 130) and with no concern about vote splitting those 4-5 seats would have gone to the FCP.
So we would have had a different kind of Common Sense Revolution (that was originally the FCP idea, borrowed by Mike Harris in mid 1990s). One, in which the tax cuts would have been achieved by cutting wasteful spendings (first and foremost - abortion funding), rather than at the expense of essential services.
Of course the situation is different nowadays and Ontario is unlikely to have another Mike Harris emerging by the 2011 election. But who said the FCP itself can't become one of the leading parties in Ontario, just like the ADQ in Quebec?
I find this interesting!
ReplyDelete