Stability of Canadian party system

[politicus]

Do you think the present de facto three party system in Canada is stable? IMO vote splitting between Libs and NDP more or less guaranties that the Conservatives remain in power.
Normally a three party system is not stable in the long run with FPTP. So I see three possible scenarios in the long run.
1. The Liberals regain their role as the major opposition party.
2. NDP replaces them permanently as the major centre-left party.
3. The two parties forms an alliance and agrees to only field candidates in constituencies where the other party doesn't .

What do you think is the most realistic long term scenario?

[RogueBeaver]

Ask me once the NDP elects their new leader. If Mulcair loses, odds are very high that 1) happens. If Mulcair wins, 50-50 to 60-40 chance that the NDP solidifies their gains. Everything can change in 4 years but for now that's my assessment.

[Sibboleth]

The Canadian party system is never stable because it's always juggling too many things. Priorities can shift rapidly and electoral movement follows shortly after.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

If the Liberals can't regain official opposition status in the next election then they're probably dead, since they have no real coherent ideology besides (quite literally) saying or doing whatever they think will get them elected.

[Senator MaxQue]

If the Liberals can't regain official opposition status in the next election then they're probably dead, since they have no real coherent ideology besides (quite literally) saying or doing whatever they think will get them elected.

This.

Perfect summary of Liberal Party.

[The Head Beagle]

The broad reason for this is that the party system has to combine a nationalist-federalist axis in Quebec and a left-right axis outside it (and to some degree in it as well), and there isn't really a single "natural" answer to what positions on the one axis correspond to what positions on the other. Really all of 1984, 1993, 2004 and 2011 are significantly about the instability of this combination. In the long run this is probably not going to go away, regardless of what happens in the short term.

I'm no Liberal partisan, meanwhile, but the Liberal Party does have a clear and coherent point to it, though it's not purely ideological: it is for the modern welfare state while being essentially a business party as opposed to a labour party. This is an interesting and unusual position and certainly leads to some tensions sometimes, but it is also appealing to certain groups and can be quite successful in certain circumstances.

[RogueBeaver]

What Pumpkin said.

[Hashemite]

Canada hasn't had a pure two-party system since 1921.

[batmacumba]

Is this odd system under FPTP only a result of regional differences and an actual federative organization, or are there more influences?

[You kip if you want to...]

The Canadian political system is the most unpredictable (western) one that I can think of. It's just... bizarre, for lack of a better word - atleast when compared to other Westminster systems like the UK or Australia.

[Χahar]

One of the strangest things about Canada is the way federal election results are based on the popularity or unpopularity of provincial governments much more than vice versa.

[RogueBeaver]

One of the strangest things about Canada is the way federal election results are based on the popularity or unpopularity of provincial governments much more than vice versa.

What? The two have nothing to do with each other. To use the most prominent example, Ontario: the PC dynasty reigned for 42 years while Ontarians mostly voted Liberal from 1935-1980. Dalton McGuinty won a third term 6 months after Stephen Harper swept Ontario. Stephen Harper was hugely unpopular in NL thanks to ABC, but Williams and Dunderdale swept the province repeatedly. Etc.

I also know it's become CW for certain pundits in both Quebec and ROC that Harper's rightward swing is helping the PQ, but trust me, the PQ's relative popularity has nothing to do with federal issues.

[Hatman]

The Canadian party system is always shifting,

We had the 1st party system from 1867 until 1921 and then the 2nd which lasted until the 1960s, and then the third lasted until 1993. It can be argued at 2011 ended the fourth system, but it may have just been a fluke.

The upcoming NDP and Liberal leadership races will be very important in deciding what happens.

[Χahar]

One of the strangest things about Canada is the way federal election results are based on the popularity or unpopularity of provincial governments much more than vice versa.

What? The two have nothing to do with each other. To use the most prominent example, Ontario: the PC dynasty reigned for 42 years while Ontarians mostly voted Liberal from 1935-1980. Dalton McGuinty won a third term 6 months after Stephen Harper swept Ontario. Stephen Harper was hugely unpopular in NL thanks to ABC, but Williams and Dunderdale swept the province repeatedly. Etc.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the Big Blue Machine and all that. I'm not suggesting it's some immutable constant; I know that George Drew failed in federal politics. But you can't argue that they're not related at all; they certainly are.

You mention the popularity of the Newfie Tories; remember that they were the ones who opposed Harper. The federal Conservatives were killed because the provincial PCs said so. Of course, even if that weren't the case, it wouldn't necessarily mean federal Tory success because the two parties aren't connected.

The classic example of provincial politics affecting a federal election is Ontario 1993; it should be pretty obvious why the NDP vote there went from 20% in 1988 to 6% in 1993. Just looking at the 2011 elections, the patterns are obvious; while the NDP vote shot up in most places, it barely changed in Manitoba and Nova Scotia and the NDP had a net loss of one seat in those provinces.

[Hatman]

Also, the NDP did pretty terrible in Manitoba in the 1988 federal election despite having its best ever election that year (until 2011). The NDP provincial gov't at the time was not too popular.

But, I think the provincial/federal comparisons are only strong with the NDP, the only real party that has a federal/provincial connection.

Oh, I also think the 2011 provincial election in Ontario was affected by the federal results. Left of centre voters, especially in Toronto voted Liberal to stop the Tories, after seeing the vote splitting in that city in the federal election. It caused the NDP to do worse than expected (such as losing York South-Weston).

[Foucaulf]

Do you think the present de facto three party system in Canada is stable? IMO vote splitting between Libs and NDP more or less guaranties that the Conservatives remain in power.

This is an immediate concern of urban "progressives", pundits and the rest of the intelligentsia. But this skirts aside another problem: why can the Conservatives maintain their 37% support of the Canadian electorate, no matter how many scandals the government goes through? At the heart of things is a big disconnect between the happenings of the federal government and the workings of Canadians, given Canada's federalized structure.

The federal government in Canada is not responsible for much, certainly in comparison to the US executive. And the Conservatives are further disconnecting themselves from the provinces, eschewing negotiations for a "take-it-or-leave-it" approach. The goal may be to create a conception of the federal government as a money distributor and the ones who control the RCMP. Then any attempt at detailing policy makes one susceptible against the Conservatives' focus on the economy and identity politics.

1. The Liberals regain their role as the major opposition party.

The Liberals thrive as the governing party. As previous posters wrote, they thrive best when there's a need to settle elite interests with common needs. But the modern neoliberal turn, with its claim that elite interests go hand in hand with common needs, remove the need of such a brokerage party. So it is not enough that the Liberals remain the opposition, but to convince the electorate that the Liberals need to be in government for the crises ahead.

2. NDP replaces them permanently as the major centre-left party.

Just because the NDP replaces the Liberals on the federal level doesn't mean it will do so on the provincial level. And ideology on the federal level, as other posters have noted, does not take simply on a left-right spectrum. The Tories also represent "the West" while the NDP supports "Quebec interests".

3. The two parties forms an alliance and agrees to only field candidates in constituencies where the other party doesn't .

Not going to happen, if only because the Liberals want to get into power alone. The NDP also believes the Liberals are not as ideologically coherent, and with 2011 the NDP finally has a base in Quebec. Both parties want to go in power as the major partner, so negotiations would necessarily break down unless the polls move drastically.

What do you think is the most realistic long term scenario?

Assuming Thomas Mulcair takes over the NDP, by 2015 the NDP will match the Conservatives. They will rule as a minority government if they have more seats than the Tories, or make a compact with the Liberals if the Tories have more seats. For the next few years, provincial Liberal parties pursue their autonomous interests while the federal Liberals become a regionalized party, popular mostly in the suburbs of major cities.

[Hashemite]

One of the strangest things about Canada is the way federal election results are based on the popularity or unpopularity of provincial governments much more than vice versa.

Doesn't India work that way as well?