Canadian Election Series - 1961 Referendum

[DC Al Fine]

The 1960 election proved inconclusive.

Unionist: 31% (-7%), 98 seats (-27)
CCF:  31% (+3%),  86 seats (+27)
Social Credit: 21% (+9%), 56 seats (+22)
Liberal: 17% (-5%) 25 seats (-22)

Fleming was rebuffed in his attempt to form a majority government. However, the biggest story of election night was Social Credit’s break though. Liberals flocked to the Socreds and their prominent deputy leader Real Caouette, while in the West, they picked up votes from the more populist Unionist voters. Despite tying the Unionists  in the popular vote, the CCF were hindered by their overly concentrated vote, so the Unionists still came first in seats.

Despite retaining a respectable caucus, the Liberals were thrown into disarray as their leader, and most prominent MP, Jean Lesage, and Paul Martin both went down in defeat. Lesage resigned the leadership on election night. The CCF made small gains in the popular vote, but were able to turn them into larger seat gains due to the relatively fragmented political landscape.

Prime Minister Fleming was put in an awkward spot. Ever the technocrat, he would have preferred to work with the Liberals rather than the populist Social Credit, but the Liberal result left him well short of a majority. Fleming was forced to negotiate with Social Credit to keep his government alive. Wishing to avoid the instability of his previous term, he tried to negotiate something more permanent.

After much talk, Social Credit leader Solon Low, and Prime Minister Fleming released their “Terms of Agreement”. While not a formal coalition, Low and the Socreds agreed to support the government for two years in exchange for an electoral reform referendum. Under the proposed reform, voters in Quebec City (3), Montreal (11), Ottawa (2), Toronto (11), York Region (6), Hamilton (3), Winnipeg (4), Calgary (2), Edmonton (3), and Vancouver (6), would become multi-member ridings electing their members via Single Transferrable Vote. Outlying suburbs, small cities, and rural areas would continue to elect their MP’s under First Past the Post.

The government quickly called the referendum for the spring of 1961, setting a threshold of 60% approval to pursue the reform further.

[DavidB.]

No. Having different electoral systems for the election of one governmental body is weird. I could accept both STV and FPTP, but not this weird moderate hero compromise. (My personal favorite is a form of "mixed-member disproportionality" in which one has two votes, one for one's single-member district by FPTP and one proportional on a national basis, but allotted along regional lines).

Nice series, btw

[Potus]

I'm voting yes in order to make things interesting and because I am a member of the Social Credit in this timeline.

[Boston Bread]

No, this seems like a way to make urban votes worth less. The results could become even less proportional than under straight FPTP.

[Supersonic]

I'm not a fan of messy compromises, so no.

Is there any other country that uses two electoral systems for a general election in this way? I can't think of any.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I's weird that single member constituencies aren't IRV, if the cities are ranking their ballots.

[Cassius]

Yes

[DC Al Fine]

Nice series, btw

Thanks,

I's weird that single member constituencies aren't IRV, if the cities are ranking their ballots.

IRL the United Farmers of Alberta had IRV in rural areas and STV in cities. When Social Credit came to power, they got rid of IRV, but not STV, because (unsurprisingly), the latter benefited them but not the former

[Njall]

Voting no

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

No (should be the same voting system nationwide)

[DC Al Fine]

Bump