Electoral Cooperation between the Liberals and NDP?

Posted by Devin Johnston on January 11th, 2009

Photo credit star5112. For a significant amount of time, some voters and political partisans have speculated openly about the advantages and disadvantages of the Liberal Party and NDP running as a slate in a federal election. While such discussion has traditionally been brushed aside as unrealistic, a number of recent developments (the coalition agreement, vote swapping, and the unification of Canada's political right) have made this possibility seem less remote. With the Conservative minority government perilously close to losing the confidence of the House of Commons, it is likely that Canadians will face yet another election within the next year or two. In this context, advocates of a running as a slate are ramping up efforts to reach a consensus on the issue. As a member of the NDP, I am opposed to an electoral slate under any circumstances, for reasons that I will outline shortly. However, I would first like to discuss some of the motivations and considerations behind the movement for either a merger of parties or an electoral slate, as well as the conditions that would be necessary for such a tactic to succeed.

Reasons For and Against a Merger or Coalition

From my perspective, I can see at least three reasons for which Liberal and NDP partisans might be desirous of either a merger or a slate:

1. To legitimize a possible future coalition government. The Liberals and NDP have taken considerable heat from Conservatives because, in the words of the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, "Not a single voter voted for a Liberal-NDP coalition."
2. To increase the joint Liberal-NDP share of seats in the House of Commons compared to the Conservatives. Obviously, the most important strategic advantage to both parties would be that they would both win more seats by not splitting each others' vote.
3. As a means to electing a government capable of implementing electoral reform. The reason that I find most compelling is that a Liberal-NDP slate could lead to a government that could introduce an element of proportionality into our electoral system, thereby eliminating the necessity to run as a slate in the future.

Coalition Legitimacy

As I have argued, I don't believe that the coalition agreement between the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc is at all illegitimate. In most industrial democracies, coalition governments formed between parties that compete against one another during elections are the norm. The idea in most countries is that elections are the time for voters to have a diverse menu of political options but once they elect a legislature (one in which it is rare for a single party to hold the majority of the seats), it is up to two or more parties to come together through compromise to form a representative government.

Of course, legitimacy can be construed in two different ways. The first is a kind of legalistic legitimacy in which a coalition is legitimate as long as it is legally formed. There is little question that a coalition is legitimate in this sense. The more robust form of legitimacy relates to whether the public perceives a coalition as a rightful and just outcome of a democratic elections. Conservatives argue that the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition is lacking in the second form of legitimacy. If this is the case, a Liberal-NDP slate would not garner any additional legitimacy because very few people would vote for such a slate. If Conservatives are wrong, then the Liberal-NDP need not garner any additional legitimacy because the public by and large already accepts the idea of a coalition. In either case, running a Liberal-NDP slate does not help the coalition project.

Increasing Standing in the House of Commons

I turn now to the share of seats in the House of Commons. The most obvious reason for a merger or a slate would be to increase the share of votes held by the Liberals/NDP compared to the Conservatives. I see several problems here. First, it is a mistake to simply add up each party's vote totals from the last election and then summarily conclude that this is the level of support that would be enjoyed by an electoral slate consisting of the those parties. For example, many fiscally conservative Liberal supporters would be loathe to vote for a New Democrat candidate if the slate candidate in their riding happened to be one. Those voters might instead choose to vote Conservative or to not vote in stead of casting a ballot for an MP who rejects the voter's policy orientation. Similarly, some New Democrats (myself included) would be very hesitant to vote for the Liberal Party, which many New Democrats consider to be centre-right in its policy orientation. Finally, some voters might simply be put off by the idea of a slate and choose not to support it. The net result is that a slate probably would not improve the Liberal/NDP standings in the House as much as its supporters hypothesize.

Depending on how the candidates for a slate are distributed (more on this a bit later), there could also be a problem if the slate ends up benefiting one party substantially more than the other. Liberals who support a slate probably envision the distribution of candidates being based on whichever party fared best in each riding in the last election. Under this distribution, the Liberals would stand down in the ridings where the NDP was strong and the NDP would stand down where the Liberals were strong. The result would be that the Liberals would field far more candidates than the NDP, while the NDP would stand down in far more ridings than the Liberals. Although both parties would probably see an increase in their seat counts, the Liberals would stand to benefit far more. There is even the potential that the NDP could inadvertently give the Liberals a majority, and in so doing lose all of the bargaining power they would have in a coalition government. Alternate methods of distribution are possible, as I discuss later, but this particular distribution would be particularly problematic from the point of view of trying to establish a coalition.

Implementing Electoral Reform

I see this as the only compelling reason that an electoral slate could be desirable. The need to think in such devious ways about how to game the electoral system is indicative of a failure of our system to yield rational and representative electoral outcomes. If the Liberals and NDP could agree to a temporary, one-time slate with the express purpose of introducing an open list mixed member proportional representation system, all Canadians would stand to benefit substantially. However, I don't see this as a very likely possibility in light of the Liberals' ambivalence toward electoral reform. Indeed, the Liberals have historically been the greatest beneficiaries of our anachronistic method of electing representatives. As such, they have a strong disincentive to commit to electoral reform as an express objective of an electoral slate.

Voter Choice

I would like to raise one additional concern that I would have about an electoral slate. As indicated earlier, the view in most industrial democracies is that voters should have a diverse menu of policy options during an election. It is only once the voters have expressed themselves by voting for clearly-defined and diverse policy platforms that the parties come together to find common ground and make compromises in the public interest. Without having a full range of options on the ballot, voters are deprived of the ability to express their genuine preferences. I wrote an article some time ago (no longer online) in which I opposed the Dion-May non-aggression pact for precisely this reason. It's not that I don't think the Greens are deserving of representation in the House of Commons (I do); it's just that I don't think that depriving voters of democratic choice is the way to accomplish that goal. If a comprehensive deal was reached between the Liberals and NDP to run as a slate, about a quarter of all voters would be forced to either vote for a party they don't support or else refrain from participating the democratic process.

Conditions Necessary for Me to Support a Liberal-NDP Slate

On balance, I believe that the arguments against a slate substantially outweigh the arguments for slate. Fundamentally, I agree with the prevailing view in most modern democracies that elections are the only time when the public has a meaningful way to express their opinions on a broad range of policy issues. Elections, therefore, are not the time for political parties to decide to not argue policy with one another. While I believe that coalitions formed post-election are better, more effective, more stable, and more representative of the diverse opinions held by voters, nevertheless I believe that each and every voter should have the right to cast a ballot in support of the party or candidate of their choosing. Therefore, under no circumstances do I support an electoral slate between the Liberals and NDP.

That said, if the Liberals and NDP formed a slate, I might still vote for it depending on the circumstances. As I wrote a week ago:

In a sense, members of a political party are making a deal with each other: "I will support you on A, B, and C if you support me on D, E, and F." Being a party member means sometimes having to bite your tongue and march in step with the party, knowing that on a different day the party will march in step with you.

At a certain point, disagreement with a party becomes so substantial that you can't justify supporting them with your vote. It is not clear whether entering into a slate with the Liberals would be sufficient to push me over that edge. The following factors would inform whether my opposition to a slate would be sufficient to trump my interest in getting the NDP into government:

1. Extent of the agreement. It is not necessarily the case the the Liberals and NDP would choose a comprehensive slate as an option. They could simply choose to stand down 100 candidates each in strategically selected ridings, while still running candidates against one another in the 100 or so remaining. The lesser the extent of the slate, the more inclined I am to vote for one of its candidates.
2. Nature of the agreement. As I alluded to earlier, the end goal of a slate would have to be clearly defined. If the goal is merely to form a coalition government, that is less attractive to me than an express goal of reforming the electoral system.
3. Numbers. If there were a comprehensive slate, I could not support it if there were more Liberal candidates than NDP candidates. In order to preserve the NDP's legitimacy as a party capable of governing (and in order to prevent a Liberal majority), a comprehensive agreement would need to have 50% of the candidates be New Democrats.
4. Process by which the agreement is formed. A major agreement such as a slate can only be made after substantial consultation with the party membership and a ratification vote. Period.

All of this, of course, is purely hypothetical. Despite recent developments, the possibility of a Liberal-NDP slate (thankfully) remains remote.

Spread the word and fan the winds of change: