A pollster on CBC this morning (October 30) said that the rising Wexit sentiment should be source of concern for federal Conservative politicians.
If Wexit rises to takes ten seats , that means that may cause the loss of 25 Tory seats. This is due to the close contests there.
All of this can be traced to the First past the post system.
First we should clarify that by the west Wexit supporters say the west, they really mean the Prairies. ln BC most voters are of the NDP and Green complexion, and their federal representation reflects that.
The rising Wexit sentiment is caused by Conservatives on the Prairies feeling ignored by the federal government. In part this is caused by federal Conservative leaders not campaigning in he west. They don't campaign here because these are generally considered safe seats. They are safe but not because Conservative takes massive proportion of the vote in the Prairie ridings but because they consistently take enough votes, say 40 percent or more, to be ensured to win seats again and again. This despite a majority of voters voting against them.
Because Prairie seats are safe, Conservative leaders devote their energy to the seats in Ontario and Quebec that are less secure an more in play.
Because the Prairie are less on their minds, no Prairie ran for the leaersip of the Conservative party in the recent leadership race.
(Meanwhile Wexit supporters say that Alberta has paid more money and gotten less back than they though fair, But recall that the equalization program is paid out of federal money. Even without the program Albertan will still (probably) pay the same amount of federal tax, just would not receive anything back at all.)
And the potential loss of Conservative seat also springs from FPTP. As Conservatives win almost all the seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan with far less than the number of votes that that thing should require. So any small shift away from them would cause shift away from Conservatives. Perhaps enough that the NDP second place party in Saskatchewan and the third place in Alberta, or the Liberal visa versa would reap the unfair benefit formerly given to he Conservatives.
Either way FPTP would produce a vast change with only a small shift in votes.
Proportional representation -either at district level through STV or overall through party-list pro-rep - would mean that a small shift in votes only produces a small shift in seats.
As every seat would be produced ab about the same number of votes, each seat would be almost equally important.
Party leaders would need to consider all seats as up for grabs and force them to spread their energy across the country.
Each province (at least the large provinces) would elect MPS almost certainly elect MPs of three or parties in line with with their due share of the vote. Their would be less feeling of alienation of regionalism.
FPTP produces instability and regionalism. Pro-rep would not.
Which do you prefer?
Thanks for reading.
=================================
Comentários