The analysis doesn't really hold true for Canada, and your facts are somewhat wrong. The smallest province had a 135k population by 2006 (last major redivision of the constituencies), 10 times bigger than your numbers (25-35k are more like the size of a small constituency in the smallest provinces). It is true that numbers favour the low population areas to an extent - constituencies in PEI have around 25K pop, while the rural provinces like Manitoba have around 80k and the denser provinces like Alberta, Québec, Ontario, BC have many urban constituencies in the 130-150k range (and most between the 80 to 100k range).
I did say provinces/territories. Northwest Territories, Yukon Territories and Nunavut all have 30-40k inhabitants (I'm not sure where you think I got that number, but you must've been giving me either too much or too little credit - I remembered it because I'd just been reading about the Canadian provinces and territories on Wikipedia a few days earlier), and they all have a seat. It's not as if you could afford to *not* give them a seat, that's what I was saying - but still they have a seat for a far smaller population than the other provinces have per seat.
But the numbers don't quite paint the whole picture. E.g.: the Maritimes together have about a third of the number of constituencies of Quebec... and about a third of Quebec's population. Cities like Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver have more MP each than the smaller provinces do.
That seems like a no-brainer.
We're a country of natural resources with a big and diversified territory. Some of the areas with low population aren't necessarily underdevelopped, and those MP representing 30k people can often represent more heterogenous interests than MP representing 100k people in far more homogenous city neighborhood often just a few sq. km in size.
And again with the no-brainer. But perhaps I was a bit vague with "favours regions with low population"; I meant no more than that the regions with low population were artificially favoured in the voting system, precisely because a strictly population-based seat division might result in untenable and unacceptable results such as entirely disenfranchising Nunavut. I hardly intended to say that Nunavut held any real power in Canadian politics - I'm not aware of any country that gives its thinly populated regions as disproportionate an amount of power as the United States, though no doubt there are a few.
It's true the system limits the number of viable parties and makes it nearly impossible for fringe parties to ever get seats despite sometime getting over 5% of the vote globally, but as for stability, or giving a lot of power to regions over the cities, it's not really true.
I never intended to say (nor said) the regions had "a lot" of power compared to the cities.
But your explanation about the lack of stability is interesting, alright. Canada does conform to the general rules in its amount of parties, and in the BQ's being a regional party, which is the most obvious way of having more parties than one would expect (it's the same way in the UK), but evidently not in terms of stability.
That would be a myth too as far as Canada is concerned. Stability was the result of the enduring strength of the center-left Liberal party far more than of the system. The voting picture can be utterly volatile since the 90s (far more so than, say, in the US).
It'd be interesting to learn what makes Canada such a special case... I'm inclined to say part of it must simply be the power of precedent and expectation - if you've seen a landslide as spectacular as that 1993 election you mention, you know it can happen again, and you're not afraid to cast your vote in such a way as to make a new landslide possible. Third parties in the US and UK lose tons of votes every election because voters do *not* believe such a thing is possible.
But there has to be more to it than that. Do Canadian MPs have much of a bond with their district - I don't necessarily mean in the pork sense, though that can be part of it?
In the 1993 election, Mulroney retired in utter disgrace and the Conservatives went from that 169 seats to a whooping 2 seats, straight from one of the strongest governments of the century to being 10 seats short of even being recognized as a party by the Chamber... The oldest party in the country. It's exactly as if the Republican party virtually collapsed overnight in the US (and thought near impossible in Canada, much as that would be in the US) Regional parties emerged, the morally and fiscally ultra-conservative Reform in the West (the "old" Tories were wiped out from Alberta after over 50 years of holding the majority of seats there) and Bloc Québécois in QC. Overnight the picture totally changed, with 2 Conservatives, 177 Liberals, 54 Bloc Québécois (out of the 75 seats in Québec) 52 Reformists from the Prairies, mostly Alberta and 9 NDP (social-democrats, pretty far left for a Canadian party). A regional (and separatist) party was all of a sudden the Monarch's loyal opposition, as embarrassing as that was for them (the Queen might see worse soon). In 1997, the Reformists gained a few seats and the BQ lost about 10 then regained them later.
I have to admit, looking at that election, one is almost inclined to reject the "single-seat constituencies promote stability" theory altogether. Going from 43% of the popular vote to 16% would've been a catastrophe for any party in any country, but in a multi-seat constituency system it wouldn't have been a killing blow like it was there, at least not in terms of number of seats. I guess it's more of a "it's less likely to happen, but when it does happen it's going to be an earthquake" deal, with Canada somehow having managed to get into a rhythm where it does happen on a regular basis.
Out of interest, what do you mean by "the Queen might see worse soon"?
By 2001 and largely because they realized under the Reform platform and banner they had peaked and were stinking way too much of the US moral right for Canada, the party absorbed the remnants of the old Tories and took its name, and gradually pushed to the fringe its moral, evangelical or right-wing catholics. The unification of the economic right, coupled with the enduring strength of Bloc Québécois (and disgust with the liberals in Qc) from one election to the other resulted in a series of minority governements - both liberal and conservative, some lasting no more than a year, with the strength of the social-democrats varying greatly. In the meantime, Alberta got richer and more relevantly bigger, and thus got more seats (and now the power has shifted west... but total lack of support in Qc and Ontario prevented it for a while). We seemed destined to be stuck in that unstable situation forever (especially since the country was doing quite well nonetheless), and at the start of the last campaign it really look more of the same, but the picture changed completely in three wees. Bloc Québécois went from 49 seats to 4 when it was expected to retain most of them. The Conservatives who are the old Reform in disguise minus the most radical elements got close to "their" Mulroney years score with 166 seats. The Liberals who had 177 seats 15 years ago now have 34 and are in a serious crisis. The social-democrat NDP had 9 seats 15 years ago, and never had been able to find support in Qc until a recent by-election where it got its first, but overnight in 2011 it went from that single seat to 59 seats in Qc, and a total of 103 in the country, becoming the official opposition facing a majority conservative government. And it's not over... the NDP got elected largely because of the popularity of its leader in Quebec (people voted for the leader, often having no idea or interest who their MP was), only to see the guy die of cancer before the parlimentary session even began. Their leadership race is still ongoing with a solid candidate from Qc, but the party has its roots in BC and industrial Ontario and the chances of the guy are really up in the air...so go figure what will happen in 2015, especially if the NDP don't choose the guy from Qc.
The Dutch precedent isn't a pretty one. But then, that really was a one-man party, so when someone murdered their one man it was fairly obvious the party was going to disintegrate very fast. Just not fast enough for them not to be voted into the government, sadly.
Still, one does expect things to go back to normal at some point - not necessarily with the same two big parties you used to have, but still with two big parties. No?
The situation is hardly more stable on the provincial level, where we went from decades of having two dominant parties (one separatist and center-left, one federalist and liberal) to the rise of a fiscal right that very nearly went from having a handful of seats for many years to coming a few seats short of forming the government 2 elections ago (and relagating the separatists to third party for the first time since 1976) only to collapse in the following election and finally to disappear this year, where the separatist party (PQ) has gone through several leadership and orientation crisis in the last years - all this resulting in absurdly keeping in power the Liberals by default rather than choice, for the first time in a majority government after a few minority ones, despite them enjoying an historical and enduring low popularity... and now we have a fairly weak PQ just out of its biggest crisis yet, a second separatist party - this one socialist, massively impopular liberals, a new fiscal right/reformist party (CAQ( found by an ex-PQ minister and that is actually an alliance of federalist and separatist forces from the right that got spectacular poll results two months ago (to the point of being the "sure bet" next majority government of most commentators) to an equally spectacular (and very fast) decline in favour, and the separatist leader deemed finished by New Year's day - people were even foreseing the end of the party after this year's election... - but weeks later she's rebounded, to the point the polls have her and PQ win a short victory if the elections are next spring.
Yeah. Political volatility has a way of getting worse and worse when it starts - I think it's grown worse in a lot of countries, even in the US though it's still rather limited there.
Now That Romney Is Officially the Republican Presidential Nominee: Pick the President!
29/02/2012 08:29:02 PM
- 1246 Views
I agree Romney will be the candidate.
29/02/2012 08:54:52 PM
- 642 Views
I would say the math favors Romney over Obama, but it will probably be close either way.
01/03/2012 03:37:52 PM
- 692 Views
I have never understood the point of the Electoral College.
29/02/2012 11:39:11 PM
- 693 Views
You don't think like a politician then
01/03/2012 12:38:36 AM
- 733 Views
I certainly hadn't considered much of that. I'm glad you posted it. *NM*
01/03/2012 07:15:03 AM
- 311 Views
I also have not seen most of that mentioned in the popular vs. electoral debate.
01/03/2012 02:34:31 PM
- 619 Views
a bit simplistic and unrealistic
02/03/2012 11:44:02 PM
- 662 Views
When illustrating a point realism is not required and simplicity is a plus
03/03/2012 03:04:26 AM
- 677 Views
I have a couple quibbles.
03/03/2012 05:23:46 AM
- 702 Views
Oh, certainly, I'm over-generalizing but I was already getting long-winded
03/03/2012 06:52:04 AM
- 667 Views
What a bunch of waffle!
03/03/2012 10:47:19 AM
- 802 Views
Also I don't like this refrain that implies only the POTUS vote matters
03/03/2012 03:29:58 AM
- 823 Views
IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college.
03/03/2012 05:57:41 AM
- 624 Views
Re: IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college.
03/03/2012 07:02:30 AM
- 660 Views
*is learning*
04/03/2012 09:49:42 PM
- 653 Views
Re: *is learning*
04/03/2012 09:56:16 PM
- 665 Views
Re: *is learning*
05/03/2012 12:08:08 AM
- 703 Views
You could imitate the French.
07/03/2012 10:40:16 PM
- 635 Views
That seems... unlikely....
08/03/2012 03:03:54 PM
- 637 Views
It does, doesn't it?
08/03/2012 06:11:08 PM
- 834 Views
After I thought about it more, I realized France and the US are not so different in that respect.
08/03/2012 08:51:03 PM
- 614 Views
More similar than the other major Western democracies at least, agreed.
08/03/2012 09:32:55 PM
- 592 Views
I did not realize lack of a parliamentary majority dictated his cabinet.
09/03/2012 12:27:31 AM
- 670 Views
I don't know much about Norwegian politics, but you seem to be wrong.
03/03/2012 06:18:08 PM
- 672 Views
Do you happen to have that link, please?
03/03/2012 06:46:31 PM
- 555 Views
Sure.
03/03/2012 06:58:07 PM
- 728 Views
Guess we did not read far enough.
03/03/2012 10:38:07 PM
- 671 Views
Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
03/03/2012 11:49:44 PM
- 874 Views
Hey, man, I am an AMERICAN: I do not HAVE to know ANYTHING!
04/03/2012 11:46:57 PM
- 893 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
05/03/2012 06:56:24 AM
- 675 Views
The thing is, regions often have national relevance far greater than their populations would suggest
05/03/2012 10:21:26 AM
- 626 Views
Fascinating.
05/03/2012 10:52:32 PM
- 655 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
08/03/2012 07:11:12 PM
- 625 Views
Many valid reasons, including those Isaac cited.
02/03/2012 02:26:37 AM
- 772 Views
Most states are ignored anyway
02/03/2012 11:56:12 PM
- 850 Views
Only because and to the extent they have already committed themselves.
03/03/2012 03:41:39 AM
- 697 Views
Why would we do something logical? Dude, you're utterly ridiculous. *NM*
05/03/2012 04:53:38 PM
- 366 Views
I'm kind of sad- does this mean Santorum won't be providing wonderful sound bites anymore?
01/03/2012 02:22:31 PM
- 613 Views
Romney or Obama, either way, America loses. *NM*
02/03/2012 01:10:26 AM
- 440 Views
Hard to dispute that either; six of one, half a dozen of the other.
02/03/2012 01:38:07 AM
- 596 Views
I'd agree hope and change was extremely unrealistic
02/03/2012 11:58:57 PM
- 589 Views
Well, you know my story there; I voted for Obama and got Hillary (at best.)
03/03/2012 01:43:20 AM
- 608 Views
Update: Despite rules requiring they be split, the MI GOP is giving Romney BOTH statewide delegates.
02/03/2012 11:10:56 PM
- 699 Views
Romney is damaged
02/03/2012 11:27:33 PM
- 607 Views
Obama is rather damaged also; it will probably come down to FL and OH, yet again.
03/03/2012 02:23:53 AM
- 710 Views
I'm hoping for Rubio as VP... then FL probably won't matter
03/03/2012 04:28:08 AM
- 596 Views
You should put that on your license plates.
03/03/2012 06:41:34 AM
- 720 Views
And what are you basing all of this on?
03/03/2012 09:54:06 PM
- 707 Views
The closeness of several states when Obama was far more popular, and UTs heavily Mormon neighbors.
03/03/2012 11:44:06 PM
- 659 Views
Wrong
04/03/2012 08:08:56 AM
- 782 Views
Higher turnout magnifies the Mormon effect.
04/03/2012 08:08:09 PM
- 818 Views
Your reasoning is flawed and if you can't see it there is no hope for you
05/03/2012 11:39:04 PM
- 723 Views
Yeah, I think we had that conversation already, several times, in fact.
07/03/2012 05:36:45 AM
- 561 Views
Do you have any knowledge of statistics at all?
07/03/2012 09:04:15 PM
- 721 Views
I hate this message board
07/03/2012 09:06:30 PM
- 516 Views
It would probably help if you deleted the stuff from two, three posts back?
07/03/2012 09:25:40 PM
- 632 Views