5 ms·
> FPTP ensures at most 2 parties Canada uses FPTP, and yet there are five parties represented in the house of commons [0]. While it's true that two parties ha
by jfim 6y ago
> FPTP ensures at most 2 parties
Canada uses FPTP, and yet there are five parties represented in the house of commons [0].
While it's true that two parties have the lion's share of seats (155 for the liberals, 121 for the conservatives), as there are 338 seats, the liberals can't just steamroll legislation unopposed; they have to get at least some approval from other parties.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Canada
- Groxx 6y agoWorth noting that Wikipedia uses Canada as its first example of "disadvantages" of the system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Dis... But yes, Canada has soldiered on remarkably well in spite of it. USA used to be multi-party as well, the transition to 2-party takes time and there's nothing that truly guarantees it, just innately encourages. There are ways to slow it down / isolate sections... but the dominant parties can also whittle away at those over time.
- int_19h 6y agoUSA was never truly multi-party, except for very brief transition periods (like when Whigs collapsed and GOP appeared).
- bbarnett 6y agoYet Canada doesn't really have two dominant parties. Neither provincially, nor federally. For example, the Conservative Party of Canada: - formed from a merger between Progressive Conservative Party - and the Canadian Alliance Of which, the "Canadian Alliance" appeared entirely from grass roots. It started with the Reform Party, where the PC party lost all but two seats, but the new "Reform" party obtained significant seats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Canadian_federal_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Canadian_federal_election Which then morphed into the Alliance Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Canadian_federal_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Canadian_federal_election Which then, after the merger, with what was left of the PCs, formed the minority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Canadian_federal_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Canadian_federal_election And then formed the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Canadian_federal_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Canadian_federal_election It should be noted that the merger between the older PC party, and the reform/alliance party was with the Alliance party at massive strength, in the House of Commons with a respectable number of seats, and 100% in charge of the future of the merged party. My point here is ; the willingness for people to embrace new parties, new ideas, and vote for people .. not parties, helps with real political renewal in Canada. Further, while some provinces aren't, most are MORE dynamic than the federal level at party change. Take Quebec, which has had new parties appear and then even form governments, in a period of two election cycles. FPTP does NOT mean 2 parties. At all.
- carlhjerpe 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_electoral_system#First_past_the_post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_electoral_system#Firs... > An absolute majority of the electorate is not needed, and is rarely achieved. As a result, power has been held by either of two parties for most of Canada's history. The party whose candidates win the second largest number of seats becomes the Official Opposition.
- bbarnett 6y agoThis is untrue. It takes the position that any conservative party, is the same party as its predecessor. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24219888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24219888