Canada vs. USA Multiparty Systems

[ottermax]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but I'm curious to get a sense as to why Canada has a thriving multiparty system with at least three parties in almost every province except PEI, and an electorate that seems to be willing to vote for a variety of parties, while in the United States rarely are third parties elected, even at the state level outside of Vermont. Even in Vermont, the Progressives don't seem anywhere near gaining government power in the near future.

Many people discuss that FPTP prevents more than two parties, or that America's diverse population limits things to two parties, but Canada also has FPTP and even in diverse locations like Vancouver and Toronto elections have several parties.

So why doesn't America have more parties in play?

[Marokai Backbeat]

For one thing, Canada's political structures don't really punish third (and fourth.. and fifth..) parties in the way American election and governing institutions do. It's a lot easier to form and fund a political party because of the differences in campaign laws and how long campaigns are in the first place. When elected the threshold for official party status, and the powers that gives, is also far more lenient. I'm unclear on how multiple parties would even work in the US Senate, for instance. It doesn't appear to even be designed for it.

Overall size is also a factor. It's easier to get momentum when the population is a tenth of the size and local and provincial government works a lot differently.

One of the biggest things though, and this is where Canada is actually fairly unique and fascinating to me, is that Canada is very willing to swing wildly and throw old political loyalties away out of nowhere. This is just a cultural difference and it's a bit of a mystery to me exactly why this is the case. Canadians, in general, are very open to changing their votes and telling incumbents to f**k off. Look at the number of provinces who have swung around a number of times. Quebec in particular is a graveyard of political parties on both the federal and provincial level. Prior to 1984 they're the haven of the Liberals, then they landslide over to the PCs, then in '93 landslide over to the Bloc, then in 2011 landslide over to the NDP. It's a very peculiar way for a population to vote and I'm mystified as to why a lot of places in Canada are like that, but at least it's entertaining to watch.

[Hatman 🍁]

It's all about money. Both parties in the US are hugely dependent on big donors who in turn want to ensure they maintain control over just those two parties. So, you have two parties which spending hundreds of millions of dollars on election campaigns. How is a third party supposed to campaign against that? Ross Perot could, be he had money.

In Canada, there are restrictions on how much money parties can spend and how much money they can collect from donors during campaigns. But not only that, it's a smaller country with less influence in the world, so there's less desire from corporate puppet masters to control things.

[DC Al Fine]

It's all about money. Both parties in the US are hugely dependent on big donors who in turn want to ensure they maintain control over just those two parties. So, you have two parties which spending hundreds of millions of dollars on election campaigns. How is a third party supposed to campaign against that? Ross Perot could, be he had money.

In Canada, there are restrictions on how much money parties can spend and how much money they can collect from donors during campaigns. But not only that, it's a smaller country with less influence in the world, so there's less desire from corporate puppet masters to control things.

Most of the West has had a multi-party system for going on a century now, and we're supposed to believe America (and to a lesser extent Australia) is stuck with two parties because of "teh CORPORASHUNS!!!"? Come on Hatman.

No, the main determinants of the number of parties are the voting method and the country's diversity

America's system is more winner take all than most other countries, so groups tend to ally together to form the largest coalition possible i.e. Only two parties. Other systems are more forgiving of third parties, so they tend to crop up more there. This is complemented by diversity, wherein concentrated minorities can add additional parties to the system than there otherwise would be (e.g. Quebec/Scottish nationalists winning what would otherwise be standard left leaning seats).

If America used the Canadian system you'd see something vaguely resembling Canada or the UK's parliaments with a bit of local flavour (George Wallace's party maybe?). If it had straight PR, you'd get the same mess of parties that the Netherlands & Israel have.

[Hatman 🍁]

It's all about money. Both parties in the US are hugely dependent on big donors who in turn want to ensure they maintain control over just those two parties. So, you have two parties which spending hundreds of millions of dollars on election campaigns. How is a third party supposed to campaign against that? Ross Perot could, be he had money.

In Canada, there are restrictions on how much money parties can spend and how much money they can collect from donors during campaigns. But not only that, it's a smaller country with less influence in the world, so there's less desire from corporate puppet masters to control things.

Most of the West has had a multi-party system for going on a century now, and we're supposed to believe America (and to a lesser extent Australia) is stuck with two parties because of "teh CORPORASHUNS!!!"? Come on Hatman.

No other country is as powerful as the U.S., though.  Of course, there are many factors, but don't discount money in politics.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Of course electoral systems aren't everything. Malta, for instance has, STV; but a completely two-party parliament.

[kcguy]

Part of me thinks having an elected president may have something to do with it, but I'm not sure I entirely see how.

In a parliamentary system, one riding can be a Liberal-Conservative marginal, while a neighboring riding can see one of the two major parties replaced by a third party.  Every party can have a few seats in the same parliament, but every party can't share in the same presidency.

But I not sure that's a complete argument, because of course we don't elect presidents nationally; we elect them based on the votes in 51 different constituencies.  There's no reason the top two parties have to be the same in every state.

On a side note, I wonder what would have happened if Ross Perot hadn't crashed in 1992.  Would it have created a more Canada-like country?  (I remember being prepared to vote for Bush in Missouri if polls had Clinton falling into third place.  About the only time in my life I remember considering tactical voting.)  What if Jesse Ventura had been able to transfer his victory into something more lasting?

[adma]

Canada has a thriving multiparty system with at least three parties in almost every province except PEI,

Actually, at this point PEI would count just as much as New Brunswick does (NDP at double digits, Greens with a seat, etc).

In fact, Saskatchewan is probably the most "two parties only" province presently, with the absolute implosion of the provincial Liberals (of course, federally, Ralph Goodale still thrives)

[lilTommy]

Canada has a thriving multiparty system with at least three parties in almost every province except PEI,

Actually, at this point PEI would count just as much as New Brunswick does (NDP at double digits, Greens with a seat, etc).

In fact, Saskatchewan is probably the most "two parties only" province presently, with the absolute implosion of the provincial Liberals (of course, federally, Ralph Goodale still thrives)

BC is still very much a two party province; the greens picking up one seat last election yes, but BC has been since the 72 NDP win a province with one free-market party dominating vs the NDP. The parties have changed on the Free-Market side from the Social Credit until the 90s and the Liberals now, but other then a few Indies, a green and an attempt at a pure Conservative party BC is pretty two party.

[adma]

Likewise, Manitoba's morphed into fundamental two-partydom, except for the Carstairs Liberal interlude and its aftermath.  And of course, when it comes to "extreme binary", there's the matter of Quebec from the time non-separatist forces galvanized behind the Liberals up to the rise of the ADQ and then the CAQ.

[Gary J]

The traditional explanation for the US two party system, is that because of the importance of winning the Presidency  there is strong pressure for politicians to group into two parties so they have a maximum chance of benefiting from Presidential power and patronage.

There may be some basis for the argument, but a strong Presidency is not incompatible with a multi party system. The French manage with a centre-right bloc of parties and a centre-left bloc. However the far right is also quite electorally successful and they usually operate independently of the bloc system.

Brazil seems to have a multi party system where there are shifting alliances from election to election and from state to state in the same election.

The United States two party system depends upon historical factors. It is not the only possible configuration of political forces. For example, if the Republicans had rejected the southern strategy in the 1960s and after, George Wallace and similar politicians might have created an enduring southern regional party which could reliably control a number of states. They might often have held the balance of power in Congress and the Electoral College, so that they could negotiate deals with the other parties. This might have been a better way to maximise the political influence of southern whites compared to becoming almost entirely associated with one of the national parties.

[Smid]

Part of me thinks having an elected president may have something to do with it, but I'm not sure I entirely see how.

In a parliamentary system, one riding can be a Liberal-Conservative marginal, while a neighboring riding can see one of the two major parties replaced by a third party.  Every party can have a few seats in the same parliament, but every party can't share in the same presidency.

But I not sure that's a complete argument, because of course we don't elect presidents nationally; we elect them based on the votes in 51 different constituencies.  There's no reason the top two parties have to be the same in every state.

On a side note, I wonder what would have happened if Ross Perot hadn't crashed in 1992.  Would it have created a more Canada-like country?  (I remember being prepared to vote for Bush in Missouri if polls had Clinton falling into third place.  About the only time in my life I remember considering tactical voting.)  What if Jesse Ventura had been able to transfer his victory into something more lasting?

I was going to say this.

While the President is elected from "51 different constituencies" as you note, a vote for a third party is a wasted vote in the presidency because your candidate can't win, even if they could win your state, which is preventing you from choosing between the parties that conceivably could win - it's still a vote for a single position. This reinforces the same two-party system in the Congress. I suspect that if the US was a parliamentary democracy run solely by the Congress, you would have seen a dominant regional party emerge from the South, and possibly other regional parties around the country as well. The Greens potentially would have won a seat or two, and perhaps the Black Caucus would have split from the Democrats and exist as a separate party.