• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Great Canadian Political Myth: Ontario is Liberal & the west in Conservative

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,951
Points
1,160
Election time again, and once again time to kill that myth that it is the -expliteve- Ontarians that keep forcing Liberal governments on the rest of the country.   The fact is that Ontario is just a small percentage different than the west, but this is exaggerated by our current electoral system.

View of the West as a Liberal wasteland mostly mythic
Close look at the numbers shows Conservative heartland hardly monolithic

Murdoch Davis, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Monday, December 05, 2005


In much pre-election commentary, the West is viewed as a bastion of conservatism or, as it's often put, a "Liberal wasteland."

This is an inaccurate portrayal of a large and complex part of the country. It results from the distortions built into our electoral system, in which support from only about 40 per cent of voters makes for landslides. News media, generally terrible at capturing nuance, amplify the distortions.

The same phenomenon in the U.S. has led to fixation on "blue states and red states" since the last presidential election. Rarely did Republicans or Democrats win a state by more than 55 per cent to 45, and many margins were closer to 52 to 48, but it gets portrayed as if the entire state populations are sharply different.

In fact, had one voter in 10 chosen differently, the outcome would have been reversed. Or even one in 20.

In our last federal election, Conservatives won 68 of the West's 92 seats. But in three of the four provinces, the party's voter support ranged from 36.3 per cent to 41.8 per cent -- hardly an indication of dominant thinking.

The West's political image in the East is shaped most by Alberta. Conservatives won 61.6 per cent of its votes in 2004, a crushing level of support in our system. Only the personal following of two MPs and pockets of Liberal support in Edmonton stopped the Tories from sweeping Alberta's 28 seats.

Still, Liberals got 22-per-cent voter support in Alberta, New Democrats 9.5 and Greens 6.1. So four in 10 of the province's voters seemed comfortable with a centre-left vote, spurning the province's alleged conservative orthodoxy. Depictions of Alberta as a redneck, right-wing homeland is an unfair interpretation of the thinking behind those Tory votes. For starters, Alberta conservatism has informed most new public policy discussion in Canada for more than a decade. But depicting it as a monolith is especially a dismissal of the views of a very large minority in the province.

The West shouldn't be viewed politically as one region. All four provinces differ, and they have regions within them that differ again. Like the rest of Canada, centre-left votes are concentrated in bigger cities, with more conservative leanings in outer suburbs, small urban centres and rural areas.

The best illustration of how the electoral system and lack of nuance shape the view of the West is in B.C. There, Tories won 22 of 36 seats. But they won the votes of barely more than a third of the voters, 36.3 per cent. Liberals won eight seats with 28.6 per cent and the NDP five seats with 26.5 per cent. Toss Greens into that salad, at 6.4 per cent, and B.C. was clearly dominated by centre-left votes.

Saskatchewan's results actually distorted voting intentions more than did Alberta's. Tories won all but one of 14 seats, with 41.8 per cent of votes. Liberals got 27.2 per cent but only one seat, that of Finance Minister Ralph Goodale. NDP got no seats from 23.4 per cent of votes.

In Manitoba, Tories got 39.1 per cent of votes and seven of 14 seats. New Democrats got four with 23.5 per cent of votes, concentrated in sectors of Winnipeg. Liberals won three seats with 33.2 per cent of votes.

Leave out the Alberta dominance, and the Tories won 42 seats to only 12 for the Liberals, although their vote totals were only 223,000 apart -- a difference of only about 10 per cent of the votes cast for the two parties.

Voting patterns in those three provinces look quite similar to those in the country outside Quebec. National support levels of the Tories and NDP -- 29.6 per cent and 15.7 per cent, respectively -- are distorted by their failure in Quebec, where they got 8.8 per cent and 4.6 per cent, respectively.

The West's real political diversity is shown in provincial elections. Alberta's 35-year Tory rule is the exception. And even there, the previous dynasty was Social Credit's peculiar combination of conservatism and collectivism, and more lately the Liberals and NDP have generally split close to half of the province's votes.

While Ontario has shocked itself and the country by electing an NDP government exactly once more than has Alberta, the other three western provinces have done so regularly. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have NDP governments; both are in their second term.

Manitoba's NDP Premier Gary Doer gets such high approval ratings that the province's Tory party, the official opposition, has just overthrown its leader even though no obvious winning alternative is ready.

All of this shows that, even in the West, the fight for electoral success is usually in the big middle.
So, if you find yourself unhappy with results when everything is done, don't throw your teddy in the corner and rant about that bad Ontario.   Blame the first past the post system.

Related idea: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25692.0.html
 
I smell a proportional representation debate coming on.

The article is correct; the "Regional" divide in Canadian politics gets more press then it should.  An urban/rural split is just as big as a factor (especially in my home province of BC).  As well, in some sectors the strength of the local economy allows a party to win (ie: NDP very popular in a union heavy riding).

MCG said:
. . . or maybe at single member constituencies, first past the post victories, and an appointed Senate.

I have no problem with single member constituencies and first past the post model.  They "jive" with the principle of representative democracy in the Lower House based upon a fair principle of apportionment.  Canadians within a riding agree to send somebody to represent them - if they all wish to send somebody along sectarian lines, then that is their problem.  Run-off elections may be worth exploring if they help to ensure that majorities are achieved (as opposed to pluralities which flurish in a multi-party system).

I'm personally more interested in seeing institutional changes that strengthen other bodies such as the Senate and the Governor General at the expense of the House of Commons (and the PMO) over simply tinkering with the way we run Commons, which is essentially an oligarchy any way you cut it.
 
Infanteer said:
I smell a proportional representation debate coming on.

...

I'm personally more interested in seeing institutional changes that strengthen other bodies such as the Senate and the Governor General at the expense of the House of Commons (and the PMO) over simply tinkering with the way we run Commons, which is essentially an oligarchy any way you cut it.
I think we've covered these topics quite well already (follow my link).  I think people were generally interested in an elected Senate wherin each province was treated as a multi-member constiuency.  There was also interest in preferential ballots for Senate & House of Commons (for an "automatic run-off") elections.  I think the verdict was mixed on the elected GG, and the concept of multi-member constituencies representing dense urban areas was just being floated (Consider London ON which includes three riddings.  These could be one multi-member ridding). 
 
The reality is that most people in Ontario are conservative ....problem is they don't come to the polls. That was no more evident when the NDP wing nuts won at the provincial level not because more voted for them just due to the fact that the conservatives never went to the poll. They are still paying for that one through debt.
For those of us that are conservative voting at the poll has always been a problem. Reason is on average conservatives make more money, spend more time entertaining and are too busy to take time out of there busy days making money to vote.
 
Your right it is weak.

Sad part it is (true) "pulling it out of my ar$#@&" thats painful.

EDIT "clarification not really but feels so accurate"
 
3rd Horseman said:
Sad part it is true

Care to substantiate that with any evidence, or are you just pulling that out of your ass?
 
Right out of me ar#@*&!

  Not really the demographics in On sorta show that but no I cant lay it all out, guess its a gut feel, I have yet heard a plausible answer as to why the NDP came crashing home to roost other than the point I made.
 
with the Ontario thing. you also have to consider the diffrences between northern and southern Ont.
while southern ontario has the most votes so then thats is usually what they go on in saying Ont is Liberal or whatever. I know for a fact that many many northern ontarians are conservatives or NDP due to the large amounts industry there. Thats why there has been talk of seperating the province north and south. the 2 are so vastly diffrent and the north is usually not considered when making decisons for Ontario.
and being from Northern Ont I think that is good idea.
 
It is fact, that out here in the west we are tory blue.
 
RECON-MAN said:
It is fact, that out here in the west we are tory blue.

Did you even read the article?  Obviously voting patterns bear that statement out....
 
Infanteer said:
Did you even read the article? 
Obviously not or he would have realized the whole country is an indecisive purple.
 
Back
Top