Republican unified government and the Constitution

If you were surprised by the results of the United States elections, you are not alone. The unexpected election of Republican candidate Donald Trump to the Presidency, and the somewhat less surprising retention of both houses of Congress by the party, could give the Republican Party great control over the agenda in Washington for at least the next two years.

The current count gives Mr Trump 290 electoral votes to 223 for Democrat Hillary Clinton, with Michigan yet to be declared (Mr Trump has a narrow lead). This margin of victory in the College is comfortable enough that one or two 'faithless electors' (members of the Electoral College who do not vote with the candidate they were affiliated with on the ballot paper) could not deny Mr Trump victory. This is despite Mrs Clinton being likely to receive the most votes nationwide.

In the Senate, the Republican Party held marginal seats in Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The Democrats picked up Illinois and New Hampshire, but this was not enough to defeat the 54-44-2 (independents caucusing with Democrats) majority the Republicans held going in to the election.

Louisiana's Senate seat is yet to be decided; this state holds an election in which all candidates from all parties participate on Election Day; if no candidate secures a majority, a runoff will take place on December 10. This runoff will be between Republican John Kennedy, who won 25% of the vote in the first round, and Democrat Foster Campbell, who won 17%. In total, Republican candidates won 61% of the vote, so it looks likely that Mr Kennedy will win the seat, and the Republican majority will be 52-46-2.

In the House of Representatives, the Republicans appear to have lost seats, going from 247 to a current estimate of 239. Nonetheless, this is still a fairly comfortable majority. It is unclear how many votes the Republicans will end up winning; their House majority in 2012 of was off 47% of the vote compared to 48.4% for the Democrats; the politicised nature of drawing districts for House seats in the United States, combined with strong Republican control over state governments, means that congressional districts in several states have been drawn to apparently favour the Republican Party.

With such an apparently strong position, the Grand Old Party has defied expectations of doom. And now, some have expressed their concern that the Republican Party's strong hold over state legislatures could allow them to amend the Constitution.

Btw you need 3/4 of the state governments in order to amend the constitution. GOP is just shy of that rn. https://t.co/WIoeqOnSVk

— Arthur Chu (@arthur_affect) November 14, 2016

How is the United States Constitution amended?

The United States has been noted for having a rigid, hard-to-amend Constitution. The most common method of amendment is approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by 75% of state legislatures.

In this sense, Mr Chu and those expressing similar concerns are correct. Only thirteen state legislatures are controlled by Democrats. Thirty-eight states are needed for ratification (since 75%*50=37.5, and 37 is less than this), and thirteen legislatures failing to ratify would indeed be the minimum required to block legislation. However, most states have bicameral legislatures, and one house would be sufficient to block ratification of an amendment. In this case, the Democrat position looks more secure. Democrats control one chamber in a further three states, meaning that an amendment on purely partisan lines would be somewhat more difficult than simply overturning the one most marginal Democratic legislature.

However, before the amendment process gets to the point of ratification by the States, approval by Congress is required. This would be the point where the content of an amendment would become somewhat relevant.

What sort of amendment would the Republicans wish to pass?

There are a number of amendments that senior members of the Republican Party, as well as Mr Trump, have either suggested their support for or implied their support for. Nonetheless, it is important to note at this point that unlike in Westminster countries, United States political parties are not nearly as internally disciplined. In most cases, registration and identification as a Republican or Democrat is done on voter registration forms, and there is relatively little control by party organisations over who is nominated. This means that there are substantial ideological differences between members of political parties. Various organisations compile 'ideology scores' that show these differences; as can be seen here.

One briefly popular idea for an amendment was the 'Federal Marriage Amendment', which would have required that all marriages in the United States be between a man and a woman. At the time when this amendment was most popular, several states had introduced same-sex marriage, and socially conservative federal Republicans were opposed to this. In the time since then, however, same-sex marriage has been legalised for the entire United States in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, and same-sex marriage has also earned public approval. The President-Elect, too, has expressed disinterest in the issue, describing it as "settled".

Another proposal, though much more on the fringe, is a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. This proposal has not been substantially discussed, but has occasionally been introduced into Congress as a means to overrule the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade in 1974 that the United States Constitution protects abortion rights regardless of federal or state law. Nonetheless, such a proposal would be difficult to pass compared to the easier option of appointing judges to the Supreme Court that would rule in favour of abortion restrictions (approval of a judge requires only a majority in the Senate, compared to the sixty-six votes needed for an amendment). The President-Elect has declared himself in favour of this course of action.

A proposal supported less by the Republican Party than by Mr Trump is the idea that libel laws in the United States should be "opened up". Constitutional amendment could be required to achieve this aim, but other members of the Republican Party do not appear to have expressed views on the subject, implying that it is a pet project of Mr Trump's. This would make it very difficult indeed to amend the Constitution, given the non-existent institutional role the President is given in the amendment process.

Partisan ability to amend

Ignoring the actual content of any amendment, what would it take, however, for Republicans to win enough seats in Congress to theoretically amend the Constitution? In the Senate, Republicans would need to gain fourteen seats; in the House, fifty-one.

It has been noted before that in the Senate, the Democrats face a difficult map. Two United States Senators are elected from each state for six-year terms, with staggered terms meaning that a different group of States vote for Senators every two years. Below is a table showing the different Senators that will be up at the 2018 midterm elections for Congress.

As you can see, more than half of the Democratic caucus will be up for election in 2018. This is because 2012, when these Senators were last up for election, was a successful year for the Democrats, as Senators from the same party as the victorious presidential candidate (that year, Democrat Barack Obama) generally do well. Ten Democrats (assuming Mr Trump's narrow lead in Michigan survives) will be up for election in states Mr Trump won; only one Republican is in a similar position.

Nonetheless, a fourteen-seat gain would be a tough ask for the Republicans. That would involve unseating every single Democrat in a state Mr Trump won, as well as four from states won by Mrs Clinton (most of whom are relatively safe) and holding all of their incumbents. Democrats in red states, like Senators Manchin and Heitkamp, also tend to use the internal ideological flexibility given to them allows them to express views more attuned to the views of their states (both are considered to be on the right-wing of their party, which is reflected by the aforementioned ideology scores); Mrs Clinton had to appeal to more mainstream Democratic voters.

In the House, current counting has the fifty-first most marginal seat (assuming a uniform swing, the most Democratic district the Republicans would need to win) as Massachusetts' 9th district, won by Democrat Bill Keating with 56% of the vote with 34% for his Republican opponent. House members are elected for two-year terms, and will all be up for election in 2018. Now, this way of measuring the likelihood of such an upset has its flaws; it does not take into account potential changes in districts, and assumes a uniform anti-Democratic swing, which given internal ideological diversity would probably not happen. But it nonetheless represents the difficulty inherent for such a swing.

All this would be presumably expected to happen in a midterm election. Midterms are generally bad for the party holding the Presidency, since voters may view it as a way to punish or restrain an existing President without throwing them out of office.

Source: Dave Leip's Atlas of US Elections

Now, clearly, the Republicans could hold on to their unified government at the 2020 presidential and general election. However, more Republicans in the Senate need to be defended at this election, based on a stronger Republican result in 2014. The best prospect for large gains for the Republicans remains the 2018 midterms.

Conclusion

The 2016 election unexpectedly resulted in unified government for the Republican Party, under a controversial and radical leader. A Democratic weakness in the states that developed under Barack Obama's presidency has led some to conclude that this result can not only allow the Republicans to make their preferred legislation, but to amend the Constitution. Nonetheless, these claims are somewhat exaggerated, even at the state level. The likelihood of an amendment passing would depend on its content, but assuming complete Republican unity on such an amendment, the party would need to gain an unfeasible number of seats in order to make changes.

The United States Electoral College and third party candidates

As most of my readers will know, elections to the Presidency of the United States, as well as approximately a third of the Senate, the entire House of Representatives, and various other state and local offices will be up for election on November 8 (by tradition, the first Tuesday in November).

While primaries for some lower-level offices are yet to take place, Presidential candidates for both major parties have been chosen through a series of primaries and caucuses. The Democrats have chosen Hillary Clinton, the early favourite, though she faced a stiff challenge from left-wing Bernie Sanders. On the other hand, a crowded Republican field narrowed to one candidate; controversial businessman Donald Trump, who had little support from the party leadership, won the nomination.

Trump's views represent a substantial diversion from traditional Republican thinking on a variety of issues. The most notable one of these is free trade; Mr Trump is opposed to it, but Republicans have traditionally supported free trade. Trump's tax plan is also a bone of controversy; while it would reduce tax rates, normally something the Republicans would support, it also does not make cuts to government programs like Medicare (health insurance for the elderly) and Social Security (the government retirement program), thus meaning that the deficit would increase.

These two issues have led a number of Republicans to look elsewhere in the presidential field. While some will vote for Ms Clinton, one other candidate gaining traction is Gary Johnson, of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarians have normally been a very minor political presence in the United States; occasionally winning a seat in state legislatures. The party's best performances have been in Senate and House elections when support for either the Republicans or Democrats in a state or district is so overwhelming that only one of the major parties puts up a candidate; when a Libertarian runs in one of these seats, they normally win a substantial share of the vote.

This year, Mr Johnson is currently polling at around 6-8% in national polls. Mr Johnson receiving support from dissatisfied Republicans is no doubt helped by his credentials as a Republican; he served as the Republican governor of New Mexico, and his running mate William Weld served as the governor of Massachusetts, also as a Republican. While this does not look like much, it would represent the strongest performance ever, by a long way, for a Libertarian in a presidential election.

Some Democrats are also not wholly happy with Hillary Clinton. Some supporters of Sanders, a self-declared democratic socialist, view Ms Clinton as too right-wing, and are also looking elsewhere. This has caused a much more muted increase in support for Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Not all polls include Ms Stein, but those that do mostly show her receiving 2-4% support; a low figure, but a substantial increase over the 0.36% she received in 2012 (though she was not on the ballot in all states at this election).

Minor candidates and Presidential elections

In countries where a President is elected, there are two main ways this is normally done; the plurality system, or the two-round system.

Under the plurality system, voters vote for one candidate, and the candidate with the most candidates is elected. Such a system is used in Taiwan, South Korea, and Venezuela, amongst others. In a close nationwide race, this system has a tendency to lead to two main contenders, as supporters of any weaker third candidate would have strong tactical incentives to vote for the member of the top two they most prefer.

However, when voters do not do this, the system can lead to candidates from one political faction being elected despite a majority of the electorate not supporting that faction. For example, at the Taiwanese presidential election in 2000, the pro-Taiwanese independence Democratic Progressive Party nominated Chen Shui-bian, who won 39.3% of the vote. However, two candidates from the opposing bloc (generally in favour of Chinese reunification) ran; the Nationalist candidate Lien Chan won 23.1%, and independent James Soong won 36.8%. For this reason, despite an apparent majority of voters supporting a pro-unification President, the pro-independence candidate won.

Most countries that have an elected President use a runoff system. Under such a system, voters vote for one candidate in the first round. If one candidate receives a majority, that candidate is elected; if not, a second round takes place, normally a couple of weeks after the first, when voters choose between the top two (in most cases) candidates.

This means that there is no incentive for tactically abandoning your most preferred candidate for the lesser of two evils in the first round, as unless a candidate in the first round wins 50%+1 (in which case choosing the lesser of two evils would not have mattered) you will be able to make that choice in the second round.

However, such a system can have its disadvantages. For example, at the 2002 French presidential election, the centre-right Union for a Popular Movement candidate, incumbent President Jacques Chirac won 20% of the vote. It was expected that he would face Socialist candidate Lionel Jospin in the second round, but a large number of left-leaning voters voted for other leftists in the first round; for example, the Workers' Struggle candidate won 5.7%, the Green won 5.2%, and the Communist won 3.4%. This meant that Jospin received only 16.2%, behind far-right candidate Jean Le Pen, who won 16.9%.

In the runoff, leftists voted for Chirac over Le Pen, resulting in Chirac winning 82% of the vote. These results demonstrate that there are still incentives for tactical voting under a two-round system; a voter may tactically vote to make the opponent of their most preferred candidate in the runoff an unpalatable radical.

The United States has a somewhat different, and currently unique, manner of electing the President. Each state is allocated a number of 'electors' equivalent to the number of members that state has in the House of Representatives and Senate combined. Each state has two Senators, regardless of size, but the number of members each state has in the House is proportional to its population. This method of allocation over-represents smaller States; for example, the state of Montana has 341,333 people per elector, but the state of California has 705,454 people per elector.

This means that on Election Day, voters are not voting for a presidential candidate, but rather electors who pledge to vote for that presidential candidate. There have been cases in the past where these electors have not voted for the candidate they were listed on the ballot for, though this has never changed the outcome of a presidential election.

Potential incentives of the Electoral College

So, what incentives would the Electoral College have, in terms of small party candidates? Well, over time, certain parties have become wholly dominant in states. For example, the Democratic Party has won the state of Massachusetts, in nearly all cases with a double-digit margin of victory, in all elections since 1984. The same goes for the Republican Party in Texas. This is why presidential elections are focused on swing states; those states where the race between the top two candidates is especially close, like Pennsylvania and Florida. Winning extra votes in a safe state is irrelevant, as the number of electoral votes (which are what matter) do not change. 

If you live in a safe state, even if there is a close vote nationwide, you have no incentive to tactically vote to support the 'lesser of two evils', given that the winner of your state is virtually determined in advance. In theory, then, people in safe states should be more willing to vote for third party candidates, given that there is little danger of them 'wasting their vote' and electing someone they dislike.

But does this work in practice? Let's look at two third-party candidates who were both totally unlikely to win; John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1996. Mr Anderson was a moderate Republican congressman opposed to the right-wing views of party nominee Ronald Reagan, while Mr Perot was a populist businessman running on a platform of deficit reduction. Perot had run in 1992, but this campaign may not have had the same tactical messaging for the voters, since Perot was in first place in some early polls.

The below charts show a comparison between the vote shares for these candidates by state, compared to the margin between the top two candidates, which represents how close a state was.

There is something of a correlation between the two factors, with the correlation being stronger with Perot than with Anderson (the precise correlation factor being 0.13 for Anderson and 0.30 for Perot). However, there are many other factors which vary these numbers, and it is still quite a weak correlation, which makes it somewhat difficult to draw any conclusions.

It is interesting, though, to consider the states that the third party candidates will do best in. Mr Johnson has public profile in New Mexico, which, though it has been quite close in the past, was comfortably in the Democrat column in 2012 (a margin of ten points to Obama). The state's high Hispanic population is also unlikely to approve of Mr Trump's rhetoric on immigration, which would mean that both campaigns would be sensible to ignore the state.

Mr Johnson's running mate, Mr Weld, is the former governor of Massachusetts, a very safe Democratic state (despite the Republican candidate for President coming from the state, it went Democratic by 23 points). While these two cannot choose their home states, for the Libertarians their states make them sensible nominees, as their home state boosts will not be cancelled out by tactical voting.

The lower statewide profile of the Green ticket (Ms Stein has run for Governor of her home state of Massachusetts, but with little success, and her highest office remains being in the Lexington town meeting, while her running mate Ajamu Baraka does not appear to have run for any office) makes this factor less relevant for them. Nonetheless, it will help Ms Stein somewhat that the state where she has the most profile (relatively speaking) is a safe state, where she will have somewhat clearer air to campaign.

Newfoundland and Labrador election, 2015-An island of volatility

The Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be holding an election to its unicameral legislature, the House of Assembly, on November 30. Newfoundland and Labrador is the easternmost province of Canada. It is also the newest province, having joined Canada in 1949.

Due to its position on the east coast, Newfoundland was one of the first British colonies in America. It was granted self-government and its own legislature in 1854. Elections in the colony were between the Liberal and Conservative parties. The Conservative premier, Fredrick Carter, expressed interest in joining Canada when the nation was federated in 1867, but his defeat by the Anti-Confederation Party (mostly comprised of Liberals) in the 1869 election stopped this.

Newfoundland was granted Dominion status in 1907, a similar status to that given to Australia and New Zealand until the 1950s. This made it a technically independent country, with its own legislature, and with its own Prime Minister.  The government, however, faced the issues that happen when you have a large, sparsely-populated country; the construction of a railway across the island of Newfoundland, and its need for government support, put the government in debt. 

The Great Depression hurt Newfoundland badly, and a drop in fish prices (fish being one of Newfoundland's major commodities) as well as high debt meant that the province was in serious crisis. In the 1932 election, the United Newfoundland Party, running on a platform of handing back government of Newfoundland back to the British in exchange for financial aid, defeated the incumbent Liberal government, and the functions of government were handed to an unelected Commission.

The Americans and Canadians spent significant amounts of money on Newfoundland during the war, which improved the economy. The government then decided, now that the crisis was largely over, to hold a Constituional Convention. After discussing a range of options, including the possibility of joining the United States, the convention agreed that a referendum should be held, in which the public would be given three options; returning to dominion status, continuing the Commission of Government, or Confederation with Canada (the Convention had not wanted this option to be on the ballot, but the British insisted)

The first referendum took place in June 1948. Off an 88% turnout, 44.5% voted for Confederation, 41.1% voted for dominion status, and the remaining 14.3% voted for the continuation of the Commission.

In order to ensure that the chosen option had majority support, a runoff referendum took place in July. The top two polling options were on the ballot, and Confederation won, with 52.3% of the vote to 47.7% for Dominion status. As a result, Newfoundland joined Canada in April 1949, and the rest of Canada were welcoming.

The first election to Newfoundland's provincial legislature took place a month after Newfoundland entered Canada. The result was a win for the Newfoundland Liberal Party, under the leadership of member of the Constitutional Convention Joey Smallwood. The Liberals won 22 seats, to 5 for the Progressive Conservatives and one for an Independent.

The Liberals were re-elected easily until 1971, all under Smallwood's leadership. During this time, the Newfoundland New Democratic Party was formed. However, the New Democrats were failing to make much of an impact in Eastern Canada, and the Newfoundland branch was no exception; it did not win any seats, and it won below 8% of the vote in every election it contested. In 1971, with the Smallwood government ageing, the Progressive Conservatives won 21 seats to 20 for the Liberals and one for the Labrador Party (Labrador being the section of the province not on the island of Newfoundland). The Labrador Party member backed the Liberals, meaning that there was a 21-21 tie (and this is why odd numbers are important when you are figuring out how many seats you want in a legislature).

Smallwood resigned in January of 1972, and Conservative leader Frank Moores took over the reins of government. However, he quickly realised that it would be near-impossible to govern a province with an exact tie in the legislature, and called an election for March. This election was won by the Progressive Conservatives with a massive landslide; they won 60.5% of the vote and 33 out of 42 seats.

Following this defeat, the Liberal Party removed Smallwood as leader. In 1974, Smallwood ran against new Liberal leader Ed Roberts, but was defeated in the convention 403-298. He then left and formed the Liberal Reform Party. The same year, an election took place. At this election, the Progressive Conservatives were returned to government, with 45.5% of the vote and 30 out of 51 seats. The Liberals won 16 seats and 37.1% of the vote, Smallwood's Liberal Reform Party won 4 seats and 12% of the vote (with only 28 candidates), and the NDP won 4.3% and no seats, again with a limited slate of candidates. One Independent Liberal was elected. Had Smallwood's party not run, and had all his votes gone to the Liberals, the Liberals would have won 26 seats to 25 for the PCs.

The next few elections saw the PCs gaining strength, and consistently winning both majorities of votes and seats. 1984 saw the first elected NDP member, when Peter Fenwick was elected for the Labrador district of Menihek, with a 26% swing towards his party. In the election next year, the NDP won 14%, a gain of about 10% (although some of this was due to the NDP running substantially more candidates). However, they only won the one seat, to 36 for the PCs off 48.6% of the vote and 15 for the Liberals off 36.7% of the vote.

The next election in 1989, however, saw the defeat of the Progressive Conservatives, after the failure of a controversial greenhouse project. At this time, however, Newfoundland was experiencing significant growth; the result of substantial petroleum deposits off the coast. The previous PC premier, Brian Peckford, had been involved in conflicts with the federal government, and this would continue over the next years.

However, the election victory was far from a clean win. Despite winning 47.6% of the vote, the PCs only won 21 seats, to 31 for the Liberals off 47.2% of the vote and 4.4% for the NDP, which won no seats. The average Liberal candidate was elected with 4% fewer votes than the average elected PC candidate, which suggests that the reason the PCs lost was because their vote spread was inefficient.

The Liberals were reelected in 1993, in a victory that is potentially attributable to the landslide Liberal victory nationwide of the same year and the decision by the national Progressive Conservative government to close the cod fishery in Newfoundland due to a lack of fish, which led to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in the province. The Liberals made minor vote gains, and the NDP won 7.4% (a gain of about 3%) and won a seat. In 1996, the Liberal government repeated this feat, winning 55% of the vote and 37 out of 48 seats, to nine for the PCs and one for an Independent and for the NDP.

Again, the Liberals were re-elected in 1999, with 49% of the vote and 32 seats, to 14 for the PCs and two for the NDP. A weak economy in the province, however, meant that in 2003, the Liberal government was defeated by the Progressive Conservatives, led by Danny Williams. Williams led the PCs to a landslide win. The party won 58% of the vote and 34 of 48 seats, to 33% and 12 seats for the Liberals and 6% and two seats for the NDP.

While the government was initially unpopular due to public service cuts, Williams' popularity soon rebounded dramatically after he was involved in a fight with Prime Minister Paul Martin involving equalisation payments. Newfoundland and Labrador wanted to keep all of its oil and gas revenue and receive equalisation payments until Newfoundland became as rich as the national average but the federal government wanted to take a share of oil and gas revenue or reduce payments. After a lengthy standoff, which included a controversial decision by Williams to stop displaying Canadian flags in the province, the government finally reached a deal, whereby Newfoundland would receive equalisation payments and would be able to keep its revenue from resources. This led to Williams becoming very popular in the newly wealthy province.

The 2007 election was therefore something of a foregone conclusion. Williams had massive support, and it was even speculated that the Progressive Conservatives would be able to win every seat, a feat that had only happened twice before in Canadian history. In the end, the PCs won 44 out of 48 seats off 69.5% of the vote. This was higher support than the Liberals had received in Prince Edward Island in 1935 (58%) and in New Brunswick in 1987 (60%), although both cases had resulted in one party winning all the seats in the legislature. The Liberals were able to hold on to three seats (two with over 60% of the vote, which may go some way to explaining why the party was still in the legislature; freakishly high support in small areas) off 21.7% of the vote, whereas the NDP won one seat off 8.5% of the vote.

Williams was involved in another public fight with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2008, after Harper decided to cap the amount of payments Newfoundland could receive. While this was fairly popular in other provinces, Williams was furious, and decided to campaign against the Conservatives in the federal election of that year. He formed the Anything But Conservative campaign, and his party campaigned for the election of federal Liberal and NDP candidates. The campaign had dramatic effect; the Conservatives polled only 16.5% of the vote in the province, their lowest total nationwide, and won no seats.

In 2010, Williams resigned, and was replaced by Deputy Premier Kathy Dunderdale. While this was initially on an interim basis, Ms Dunderdale chose to run for PC leader, and therefore Premier, on a permanent basis. She ran in a leadership convention unopposed, and was thus therefore made premier.

The election of the next year was widely expected to be another easy win for the PCs. With a wide lead in the polls and strong growth. The Liberals were struggling to make an impact, but the NDP gained support dramatically in the late days of the campaign, and it was considered possible that they would be able to finish second. At this point, the New Democrats were gaining support nationwide, in places where they had not had much support before (like Quebec).

In the end, the NDP finished second in terms of votes, with 25%, but third in seats, with 5 seats out of 48. The Liberals won 6 seats and 19.1% of the vote, while the PCs won 37 seats and 56%. Most of the NDP seats were won in St John's, the capital city, while the Liberals were strongest in Labrador and the west of the province.

Dunderdale's government started off popular, but has declined in support since the last election. This has been due to a variety of factors; the declining price of oil, an increasing provincial deficit, and cuts to education, amongst others. One year out from the election, the government had fallen into second place in the polls, behind a surging NDP.

With her polls collapsing, Dunderdale resigned in January 2014. She was replaced on an interim basis by Deputy Premier Tom Marshall. The first attempt to elect a permanent leader took place in March of the same year. Energy businessman Frank Coleman was the only candidate, but declined the leadership for family reasons, and Health Minister Paul Davis was elected narrowly in September.

However, the New Democrats eventually fell back. This was due to a leadership scandal that took place in late 2013 when NDP leader Lorraine Michael was criticised by her caucus (her entire caucus), who sent a letter asking that a leadership convention be held. Two members of the caucus backed out on the letter, while the other two stood by their words and left the party, later joining the Liberals.

A leadership review held in May 2014 allowed Michael to stay in office, but after dismal performances in the Conception Bay by-election (where there was a 21% swing against the NDP candidate) and the Trinity-Bay de Verde by-election (where the NDP candidate lost 8%), as well as fast declining polls, she resigned. In a leadership election, union leader Earle McCurdy was elected leader by 68%. McCurdy improved the party's polling for a short time, but in recent weeks they have fallen back, and their support has gone to the Liberals.

The Liberals have performed well over the past few years. Following the 2011 election, Kevin Aylward resigned, and was replaced by Dwight Ball, the member for the rural district of Humber Valley. The party has been leading the polls since August 2013, and has gained ten seats through defections and by-elections. The recent Conception Bay by-election saw a 42% swing towards the Liberals, and the Humber East by-election resulted in a 47% swing towards the Liberal candidate.

Expected results, and what they mean

It looks almost certain that the Liberals will win this election. The poll aggregator site ThreeHundredEight projects that the Liberals will win 57% of the vote and 30 out of 40 seats. Despite Canadian opinion polling's previous poor performances, it would take a significant fail on the part of pollsters to call this election wrong.

While part of this is local factors, another part is that the election has been timed well for the Liberal Party. It takes place during the honeymoon of the federal Trudeau Liberal government, which is not insubstantial (a recent poll gave the Liberals 55% of the vote to 25% for the Conservatives and 12% for the NDP). The election of the Trudeau government boosted the support of the provincial Liberals substantially.

Another impact of this election regards the NDP, and their position in Atlantic Canada. While the party gained significant support in Atlantic Canada in 1997, they have no seats in the area at this point. In terms of provincial governments, too, the NDP has not done so well in recent elections. Despite positive polls in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the party won no seats in both elections. They had more luck in Nova Scotia, winning government there for one term, but are now in third place. A loss in this election would represent another setback for the NDP in this region.

The loss for the Progressive Conservatives does not, as happened in Alberta, mean that they will be likely shut out of power for a long time. While the voters of Newfoundland seem to like strong government and large majorities, the performance of the last term suggests that a large majority will not make the Liberals invulnerable.

Canada 2015-What does it mean for political reform?

At this point, it should now be clear that the Liberal Party of Canada has won the 2015 Canadian election, with 184 seats to 99 for the Conservative Party, 44 for the New Democrats, 10 for the Bloc Quebecois, and a single seat for the Green Party. The Liberals will have a majority of 14 in the new parliament.

This is a fairly unexpected result. The campaign period saw the Liberals pull out a narrow lead over the Conservatives, with the NDP relegated to third place. However, in the end, it appears pollsters overstated the NDP vote at the expense of the Liberals. This may have been because NDP voters tactically switched to the Liberals to prevent a Conservative government. At this point, it's a bit unclear. Canada's polling industry has had some significant errors recently; for example, all polls for the 2013 British Columbian election had the NDP in the lead, but the Liberals actually won. This is a less egregious error, and it has to be seen in the context of a long and complicated election campaign.

Despite Trudeau's small majority, it's certain that he will be able to pass his agenda through the House of Commons. Canada has strongly disciplined parties, and in the last parliament, even the most rebellious of MPs voted with their parties more than 95% of the time. The NDP will also offer support on some issues.

One interesting thing about this election is its similarity to the last one. The below image shows the results of both elections, side by side.

Click on the image for a larger size

While the colours change, the ratio is the same. There is a government party, with a small majority. The opposition has about 30% of the seats, and the third party has 10-12%. The fourth party is very minor, although the identity of this one has not changed. 

The above chart shows that the 2015 and 2011 results are perhaps a return to pre-1993, when Canada had a complete three-party system. The emergence of the Bloc and the splitting of the right between the Progressive Conservatives and Reform Party changed this, but both of these trends have now seemingly reversed.

Whether this will last is, again, unclear. However, I think it is very likely that the current state of affairs will persist. The Bloc polled badly despite Giles Duceppe's return as leader, and the Greens are shrinking. Of course, freak events like the NDP surge in 2011 might happen, and no one can really tell what the future holds. Trudeau may perform badly, and disappoint NDP or Conservative switchers. Or the Conservatives might split, or the Bloc might make a comeback. Who knows?

The election and political reform

Trudeau faces one issue when he gets into office. The Senate of Canada, a wholly appointed body, currently has a Conservative majority. There are 47 Conservative Senators, to 29 Liberal (affilated) Senators and seven independents. Now, this looks bad, but it is important to note that this is not the entire Senate. There are 22 seats that have fallen vacant, but have not had appointed members. Former Prime Minister Harper did not appoint people to these seats, as part of his sporadic enthusiasm for Senate reform.

Normally, Trudeau would appoint Liberals to all 22 seats, and that would be that. However, there are two factors in play here that will make this harder. First of all, the Liberals do not actually have a Senate caucus. Trudeau expelled all Liberal Senators from the party caucus in 2014, although the Senators quickly decided to call themselves Independent Liberals (a genius plan! How could Trudeau have seen it coming?).

Of course, this is fine for the current Senators. But Trudeau now has to make appointments. He is faced with the dilemma of having made promises not to appoint any Liberals, and having to appoint enough Senators who will toe the Liberal line in order to pass his agenda. One of those things may have to go, and I am willing to reckon it will be not appointing Liberals.

The other issue is that Trudeau will apparently not be in control of Senate appointments. The Liberal platform calls for the creation of a "new, non-partisan, merit-based process to advise the Prime Minister on Senate appointments". What this will exactly look like is really, really unclear. However, such a vague commitment gives the Liberals no shortage of room to wriggle out of this commitment. While this may seem cynical, I think that the 22 new Senators will most likely be fairly supportive of the Liberal Party.

Electoral reform is another matter. The Liberals made a more specific promise in this area, saying that they are "committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the post voting system". They say that they will convene a committee to discuss ideas, and then within 18 months they will pass legislation to introduce a new electoral system.

Of course, it's kind of hard to tell what system the Liberals will introduce. However, one can guess that they might go with some form of preferential voting, most likely single-transferable vote in single member districts/preferential voting/alternative vote. As the centrist party, they will receive preferences from the Conservatives against the New Democrats (although, if it is optional preferential, this flow will be fairly weak) and New Democrat and Green preferences against the Conservatives. It may be a way to solve the vote-splitting issue on the Canadian left without a merger of the two major parties, which would be acrimonious. Single-member districts will likely be maintained; only the much reduced NDP and the unimportant Greens have consistently been in favour of proportional representation with multi-member districts.

I would expect such a change to be heavily resisted by the Conservatives, who will try to block it in the Senate. They will argue that the proposal will not have democratic legitimacy, as it has not been presented to voters. If the Liberals have trouble passing it through the Senate (not likely), they might resort to a referendum on the issue.

The Canadian Senate has seemingly survived this election, although some more scandals may put Trudeau under pressure to make more changes. However, from a tactical perspective, electoral reform would be one Liberal promise worth keeping.

Canada 2015-the election and political reform

The northern American nation of Canada will be holding an election on October the 19th. The election will be for all the 338 seats in the House of Commons, the lower house of the Canadian Parliament. Canada has a parliamentary system, and is a constitutional monarchy under the Queen of the United Kingdom.

The political system

Ever since it was created as an autonomous Dominion of the United Kingdom in 1867, Canada has stuck faithfully to the Westminster political system. It has a bicameral parliament, with 338 members of the House of Commons, the lower house, and 105 members of the Senate, the upper house. Legislation has to pass both houses of Parliament, and then has to be approved by the Governor-General, the representative of the Queen appointed on advice of the Prime Minister (who basically rubber-stamps legislation passed by the Parliament). The main difference between Canada and the UK is that Canada is a federal nation, so it is not as centralised as the United Kingdom.

Unlike some other post-British Empire states, Canada has kept the tradition of an appointed upper house. Senators are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, who is required to appoint a certain number of Senators for each province. Since 1965, Senators serve until the age of 75; up until this point, they could serve for life. The Senate is the least important house; it is very rare for cabinet members to sit in the Senate, except as a temporary measure before entering the House.

This part of Canada's constitution has been controversial, as it means that Senators are unaccountable to the electorate. A number of scandals involving Senators misusing their expenses have led to public support for the scandal, with only 14% supporting the status quo. Some Senators are actually elected; the province of Alberta holds elections for 'senators-in-waiting' using the multiple non-transferable vote system, and the current Conservative government has agreed to appoint these people to fill Albertan vacancies: no great hardship, given that all the Senators elected in positions that have led them to be appointed up to now have been members of the Conservatives.

Like the United Kingdom, Canada uses the single-member plurality system (voters vote for one candidate, the candidate with the most votes wins, abbreviated as SMP). Up to 1967, some districts elected more than one member, using the multiple-non-transferable vote system (voters vote for M candidates, where M is the number of members to be elected, the M highest polling candidates are elected). The system is fairly majoritarian, and in most countries where it is used, it leads to majority governments off plurality votes and two-party systems.

However, Canada has not had an especially strict two-party system. In the early days of the dominion, there were two parties, the Liberals, who were in favour of economic and social liberalism, and the Conservatives, who were in favour of economic and social conservatism.

 In 1921, the first major new party, the Progressives, won 58 seats in the House of Commons to 118 for the Liberals and 49 for the Conservatives. The Progressives were an agrarian party, supportive of socialism, and gained most of their support from the farming provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. The party did not last, however, with pressure from the similar United Farmers of Alberta party pushing them down to just 11 seats in 1926. These two parties did not suffer so much from the majoritarian effects of SMP, as their support was heavily concentrated in certain regional areas.

1935 saw the Great Depression wreaking economic havoc in Canada, with unemployment high. Two new parties won seats at the federal level; the Social Credit Party, a socially conservative but economically left-wing party, and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), a socialist party. They won 17 and 7 seats respectively, although the vote share for the CCF, at 9.3% was higher than the 4.1% for Social Credit. This was because Social Credit were completely dominant in the province of Alberta, where they won all but two of their seats, while the CCF lacked this dominance anywhere. The election also resulted in the complete destruction of the Farmer-Labor and Progressive parties.

The Liberals and Conservatives remained dominant, however, through the next years. The Conservatives renamed themselves the Progressive Conservatives. The CCF changed their name in 1961 to the New Democratic Party (NDP) and Social Credit split into an English-speaking and a Quebec party; the English party quickly disappeared, while the Quebec party stuck around for a while, although with few seats.

Significant changes took place in 1993. The Progressive Conservative government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had become unpopular after introducing a Goods and Services Tax, increasing the budget deficit, and spending a lot of time on constitutional affairs. Mulroney had resigned, and was replaced by Kim Campbell, who became the first female Prime Minister of Canada.

Despite this, the Progressive Conservatives won just two seats at the election, down from 169 seats at the last election. The NDP won 9 seats, down from 44. They lost seats to the Liberals, who won government at this election, but also to two new entrants; the Bloc Quebecois, a party favouring independence for the province of Quebec, which won 54 seats and formed the Opposition, and the Reform Party, a right-wing party with strong support in the western provinces, which won 52 seats.

Interestingly, the Bloc Quebecois won a smaller share of the vote than the Progressive Conservatives (13.5% for the Bloc, 16% for the Progressive Conservatives), but due to their regionally concentrated support, the Bloc (and Reform, which won 18.7%) won more seats than the Progressive Conservatives.

This, of course, was all brilliant for the Liberal Party. They were able to govern for the next decade with weak and splintered opposition. The Progressive Conservatives and NDP formed the opposition to the Liberals in the East, the Bloc formed the opposition in Quebec, and Reform opposed the government in the west. Seeing as neither party was especially interested in forming a coalition with another, the Liberals could count on split opposition votes, which meant that they could stay in government.

This situation was recognised by leaders of both right-wing parties as being unsustainable, and in 2003, the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party (by this point named the Canadian Alliance) merged into the Conservative Party. This party would be led by Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper, a MP from Alberta.

The Conservatives won a minority government (Not sure what this is? See below) in the 2006 election, with the Liberal Party forming the opposition, the Bloc being the third party, and the NDP being the third (in the case of the last two, the vote shares were the reverse of the seat shares). This was repeated in the 2008 election, only with the Liberals weakened and the Conservatives and NDP strengthened.

The next election, which took place in 2011, was rather different. The Liberals were led by Michael Ignatieff, a well-known academic. However, he was criticised by both the Conservatives and the NDP for not being resident in Canada. The NDP leader, Jack Layton, experienced an upswing of popularity in Quebec, traditionally a NDP-free zone. This was mostly at the expense of the Bloc.

In the end, the results were 166 seats for the Conservatives (a majority government, the first since 2004), 103 seats for the NDP, 34 seats for the Liberals, 4 seats for the Bloc, and one seat for the Greens. The result was the strongest result ever for the NDP, and weakest ever for the Bloc.

What are minority governments?

Despite Canada's usage of the single-member plurality system, there is a multi-party system, as this graph shows.

The effective number of parties is a measure used to gauge how many parties of the same size would be in the Parliament after an election. As you can see, Canada's score is consistently above two. The existence of a multi-party system owes a lot to regional differences, with different parties getting support in different areas.

Of course, multi-party systems tend to lead to parliaments in which no party has a majority. Canada is no exception to this. Since 1972, 5 out of 16 elections have resulted in parliaments where no party has a majority.

So, how do governments get formed out of minority parliaments? In most countries, parties would form a coalition in order to control a majority. However, in Canada, the largest party in terms of seats forms the government. It then has to avoid a no-confidence motion. It usually avoids this by making informal arrangements with other parties (policies in exchange for votes), or, if one of the major opposition parties is unpopular, relying on that party to not vote no-confidence in the government.

Formal coalition governments are very rare in Canada. Following the 2008 election, there were plans for the Liberals and NDP to form a coalition government, with outside support from the Bloc and Greens; however, these fell through after Prime Minister Harper prorogued (temporarily suspended) Parliament to avoid a no-confidence vote, and Michael Ignatieff rose to the Liberal leadership.

There has been talk of a coalition government following this election between the Liberals and NDP. However, such a coalition would prove controversial, especially if the Conservatives won the most seats but not a majority. The Conservatives would claim that they would have the right to govern; while a successful no-confidence motion would probably stop this, it might be looked upon unfavourably by the electorate. Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has said that he will not take part in a formal coalition, but has not ruled out supporting a NDP government from the outside.

The parties

The Conservative Party is the major right-wing party in Canada. It is led by Stephen Harper, an Albertan MP who has led the party since it was formed. The party is a coalition of more radical right-wingers from the West, and more moderate conservatives from Ontario and the Atlantic provinces. Much of Harper's popularity has come from a fairly strong economy despite the international recession, caused by increasing oil exports. However, with the recent reduction in the global price of oil, Canada's economic growth has paused. Despite contrary expectations, he did not reverse the decision of the Canadian parliament to legalise gay marriage in 2005.

Prime Minister Harper has also introduced a number of changes to Canada's political system. He is an opponent of the status quo in the Senate, but due to the convuluted nature of Canada's constitution, this has not happened; a plan to introduce elections was struck down for want of approval from seven provinces and 50% of the population. He has also passed changes to the electoral law, which introduced (fairly liberal) identification requirements, restrictions on political advertising, and repealing the ban on publishing electoral returns before the close of the polls nationwide.

Polls since the last election have been somewhat negative for the Conservative Party. They led until March 2012, where they entered into a tight two-way race with the NDP. The NDP surge had abated by November, and they led (but only with 30-35%, short of the 39% from the general election) until April, when the Liberals took the lead. By the start of 2015, their polling had strengthened, but this year they have been pushed out of the way by the Liberal surge.

The New Democratic Party (NDP) are a left-wing social democratic party. As explained above, they traditionally have been a minor group, but they gained support dramatically in 2011 in Quebec. At that election, they were led by Ontario's Jack Layton, but he died of cancer shortly after the election. He was replaced by Thomas Mulcair after a tight leadership race. Mulcair is a Quebec MP, who was elected in 2007 in a by-election; he was only the second NDP MP from Quebec. The party is in government at the provincial level in Manitoba and Alberta, and is traditionally strongest in the western provinces. However, it has gained support in the East in recent times, although there is still no provincial NDP.

The NDP has some fairly radical proposals for political reform. They propose the abolition of the Senate, and the introduction of proportional representation. The former proposal has the serious issue that it would require unanimous consent from the provinces; certainly, this would be quite a task. While the two provinces governed by the NDP would likely give their consent, it seems likely that provinces that are overrepresented in the Senate (Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick) and are governed by the Liberals would almost certainly exercise their veto.

The proportional representation proposal is more contentious. The system proposed is mixed-member proportional representation, which has been a long standing NDP proposal. However, worryingly, the NDP have said that they will not support a referendum on the proposal. This would mean that a NDP government with the support of the minority of the electorate could pass this dramatic change. It is unlikely that it will pass, however; the NDP are unlikely to win a majority, and even if they do, the Senate (where the NDP have no representation) would probably reject it.

The Liberal Party have had a rough time over the past decade. A liberal centre-left party, they were considered to be the natural party of government. However, in 2004, the party was hit by a number of scandals and the formation of the Conservative Party. Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin was defeated in the 2006 election. He was replaced by Stephane Dion, a minister in the Liberal government. However, he lost ground in the 2008 election, and was replaced by Michael Ignatieff, a well-known academic.

While Ignatieff was perceived to be popular due to his high profile, the Conservatives ran a campaign attacking his American origins. The party lost many seats, falling to just 34 MPs and third place, and Ignatieff lost his own Toronto seat; for obvious reasons he resigned. To replace him, the party turned to Justin Trudeau, a member for Quebec. Trudeau has Liberal pedigree; he is the son of Justin Trudeau, the Liberal prime minister who served from 1968 to 1979, and again from 1980 to 1984.

The Liberals are normally the traditionalists when it comes to the Senate. Their proposals call for Senate appointments to be handed to a non-partisan board, and for Senators to not be members of political parties. Trudeau followed through with this, by removing all Liberal senators from the Liberal caucus. This stunned Liberal senators, who took a full day to think of a solution; still calling themselves Liberals. The Liberal policy also calls for electoral reform, but there is not a specific proposal; instead, they just say that they will 'fully and fairly consider' all proposals, before introducing a bill. Like the NDP, there will be no referendum.

One of the other big losers from the 2011 election was the Bloc Quebecois. They are a Quebec-only party, and their main policy is independence for Quebec. They were formed in 1991, by former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Lucien Bouchard. The party won 54 out of 75 seats in Quebec, and formed the opposition. The single-member plurality system worked in their favour, as they were a regionally based party. In 1996, Bouchard resigned as leader to become Premier of Quebec (as leader of the Parti Quebecois, a party with a similar policy). He was replaced by Giles Duceppe, who served as leader of the party until 2011, when the party collapsed following the NDP surge in Quebec, winning just 4 seats.

The party went through years of leadership turmoil, with the leadership being held by first the anonymous Daniel Paille, and then Mario Beaulieu, an old hardline supporter of Quebec independence. The party lost three of its four MPs to defections, and hold two today only because one NDP MP defected to the party. Following Beaulieu's resignation, Giles Duceppe returned to the leadership.

The party does not have much in terms of political reform, as their key policy (independence for Quebec) would involve the province being cut loose from Canada, and thus Canada's politics not mattering. However, it is considered that they are vaguely supportive of proportional representation and supportive of the abolition of the Senate.

Like in many countries, the Canadian Green Party have increased their support over the past decade. Their high point in terms of vote share came in 2008, when they won 6.8% of the vote. However, they did not win a seat; their only member, former Liberal Blair Wilson, was defeated. At the 2011 election, the party fell to 3.9%, but their leader Elizabeth May was elected in the British Colombia district of Saanich-Gulf Islands. Over recent years, the Greens won provincial seats in British Colombia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, and they gained one member through the defection of Bruce Hyer from the NDP. The Greens seem unlikely to win many more seats; Hyer will probably not be re-elected, and no other districts look like they have much potential.

The Greens are supportive of proportional representation, although they do not offer a specific proposal; they say that they will 'consult the public' before introducing laws (although once again, without a referendum). The Greens support Senate elections, through proportional representation.

Last, and almost certainly least, there is Strength in Democracy. This is a small political party formed by two Quebec MPs; one from the Bloc and one from the NDP. The party supports Quebec regionalism, and decentralisation; unlike the Bloc, they will be running candidates throughout Canada. They support proportional representation, but their position on the Senate is unclear. They will almost certainly lose all their seats.

An auspicious outlook for political reform?

Proportional representation looks unlikely to happen in the next Canadian parliament. If the NDP wins a majority, they will introduce legislation for proportional representation, but it will get knocked back by the Senate. It is plausible that the Senate will approve a bill for a referendum, but a referendum would be another story. If the NDP win a minority and need to rely on Liberal support, a lesser reform like preferential voting might be introduced, and might (although it's not entirely clear what the NDP would do about the Senate, seeing as they have refused to appoint any members).

As for the Senate, the Conservatives seem unlikely to be able to pass reform; Harper's disinterest in any change is evident from the fact that it is rarely mentioned on the party website. The NDP certainly have a grand proposal, but unanimous provincial consent seems about as likely as a Strength in Democracy landslide, and the Liberals won't really do much. 

In effect, Canada's election does not look like it will lead to political reform. The institutions already in place make it unlikely that reform will happen, but the campaign is still young, and the stakes could change.

The strange case of the Alberta Wildrose Party

Alberta, a province in the West of Canada, has traditionally had one of the most stable and uncompetitive political environments in the world. However, recently Alberta's political environment has become oddly unstable, and a series of events has taken place involving a new political party known as Wildrose that have surprised many. The party has split, and the majority of members have left to join the government.

The Singapore of the west

Alberta is the fourth most populated province in Canada, and is the second richest per capita. Its large oil reserves have kept them wealthy, and this wealth has fathered a sense of political confidence and complacency.

Albertans have never elected a party that they previously threw out of power. Government has been formed by the Liberal Party, the United Farmers Party (progressivism, social democracy), the Social Credit Party (social conservatism), and the Progressive Conservative Party (also conservative). Governments have also been long-term. No Albertan government has served for less than 14 years in office. 

The United Farmers Party was elected in 1921, and, rather oddly for a progressive party in that era, repealed Prohibition, which had been introduced by the previous Liberal government. They did introduce mandatory sterilisation for the disabled, which seems rather unsettling. However, the United Farmers coped poorly with the Great Depression, and were wiped off the map in 1935 and replaced with the Social Credit Party, led by William Aberhart. 

Social Credit introduced some good ideas, some bad ideas, and some utterly crackpot ideas under Aberhart. One of these ideas was the Accurate News Act, which would have required all Albertan newspapers to print "corrections" of stories that Social Credit members of parliament did not agree with. This bill was knocked back by State Governor John Bowen, in one of the rare cases of state Governors using their fearsome "reserve powers". 

Aberhart died in 1943, and was replaced by the more moderate Ernest Manning. Manning dumped Social Credit as an ideology, and introduced a more mainstream conservative ideology. He led his party to seven consecutive electoral victories, and rarely faced an opposition  of more than 10. Alberta had too few opposition MPs for an opposition leader from 1959 to 1963.

In 1971, the Social Credit Party, under the leadership of Manning successor Harry Strom, was thrown out of office. They lost to Peter Lougheed of the Progressive Conservative Party (PC).  Social Credit won 25 seats in the 75 member Parliament, while the PCs won 49 seats and one New Democrat (social democracy) was elected.

Lougheed  liberalised some of Alberta's more repressive laws about social issues, but didn't do much different. Social Credit collapsed, and won only 4 seats in 1975. They spluttered on for a few more years, but finally left parliament in 1982, when the PCs won 75 out of 79 seats. The other four went to 2 independents and 2 New Democrats. 

In 1985, Lougheed retired. He was replaced by the less popular Don Getty, a football player. Under the leadership of Getty. the Progressive Conservatives lost 14 seats in 1985. While they still won 61 out of 83 seats, they faced a more strengthened opposition of 16 New Democrats, 4 Liberals, and 2 members of the Representative Party (a social-credit style party).

Getty was replaced by Ralph Klein, a more popular Progressive Conservative. The 1993 election, Klein's first as leader, was a polarised contest between him and Liberal leader Lawrence Decore, with the New Democrats being wiped out. Klein won 51 out of 83 seats, with the Liberals winning 32.

For the next 18 years, Klein comfortably won election after election. In 2008, Klein's successor Ed Stelmach was elected, winning 72 seats. 

The rise of Wildrose

In 2011, Stelmach resigned as Premier. His unpopularity was growing, but Progressive Conservative support was not flowing to the Liberals or New Democrats. Instead, it was flowing to a new force; the Wildrose Party.

Formed in 2008 as the Wildrose Alliance, the party was a very conservative party that complained that the PCs have moved too far to the left. The party won no seats in 2008, but came very close to retaining the seat of its only MP; Paul Hinman, who had joined the party from the similar Alberta Alliance.

The Progressive Conservatives chose Alison Redford, a moderate within the Progressive Conservatives. Redford's centrist style alienated many within the PCs, and Wildrose began to lead in the polls. The prospect of a government change in Alberta was on the cards; and in Alberta, when governments change, they change for good.

The 2012 Alberta election was the closest contest in years. Wildrose started out with a lead in the polls, but Redford campaigned hard, appealing to Liberal voters scared of a Wildrose government to vote for her to stop Wildrose. Embarrassing gaffes by Wildrose candidates, like Alan Hunsburger, an Edmonton candidate, who wrote a ranting blog post claiming that homosexuals would "suffer the rest of eternity in the lake of fire, hell". This did not go down well, as did leader Danielle Smith's refusal to disendorse Hunsburger.

In the end, Redford won. Her Progressive Conservatives won 61 seats in the 87 member parliament, a loss of 11 seats from 2008. Wildrose won 17 seats off 35% of the vote, while the Liberals suffered a massive drop in terms of votes, falling from 26% in 2008 to just 10%. The Liberals appear to have been a victim of tactical voting; Liberals may have voted PC to stop Wildrose. However, they managed to win 5 seats, down from 8 in 2008. The New Democrats won 10% and 4 seats.

However, Redford's support didn't improve after 2012. Cuts to higher education, poor relations with unions, and expenses scandals caused dramatic drops in both support for Redford and support for her party. Redford's approval rating dipped below 20%, and Canadian election prediction blog ThreeHundredEight predicted that under some poll results, the PCs would win 9 seats under Redford's leadership.

With the knives out, on March 19, Redford quit. She was replaced temporarily by Dave Hancock and permenantly by Jim Prentice, a former federal environment and industry minister.  Prentice was a far more popular figure than Redford, and under his leadership a number of controversial initiatives were terminated in an effort to placate unions. Prentice's (relatively) clean record in federal government gave him a better image than Redford

So, what did this mean for Wildrose? Well, it was a bit of a shake up. The party that gained strength off the claimed centrism of Stelmach and Redford had some trouble against someone who at least appeared to be a populist conservative in their mould.

On November 2, Wildrose MP Joe Anglin left the caucus. Smith had threatened to expel Anglin from the Wildrose caucus due to criticism of party advisors, and he was already disendorsed in advance of the next election. It seems that Anglin has left because of dissatisfaction with Wildrose, rather than any attraction towards the PCs, as he became an independent.

On the 24th of the same month, another two Wildrose members left. However, this time they joined the PC caucus. Kerry Towle and Ian Donovan quit, claiming that the party was pressuring them to vote in a certain way against their interests, and that they supported Prentice and felt opposition to him was worthless.

However, it took until December for the proverbial poop to hit the fan. Rumours started flying that Wildrose and the PCs would merge, or that there would be a mass floor-crossing. On December 17th, it happened. Smith resigned as party leader, and announced that she would leave Wildrose and join the PCs. Eight other members, including the party house leader, followed her, leaving a rather sad rump of five members.

What makes the whole experience even odder (if the majority of MPs leaving an opposition party to join a government party isn't odd enough) is that Smith, as she was heading out the door, wrote a letter to the remaining caucus members asking them to seriously consider merging with the PCs. This is extraordinary; the leader of a political party with the support of 34% of the vote at an election suggesting that the party merge with a party consistently opposed by that leader.

Danielle Smith's resignation letter by edmontonjournal

Parties such as Wildrose are already rare in Canada, a nation with a relatively stable three-party system. The New Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives have divided up most power in Canada, and the Greens have small support bases in most provinces. One exception is New Brunswick's Confederation of Regions party, a party opposed to bilingualism and the teaching of French. That party won the position of Official Opposition in 1991, but collapsed due to infighting and won no seats in 1995.

In South Korea, a somewhat similar incident took place. The right-wing Democratic Justice Party merged with two liberal opposition parties to form the Democratic Liberal Party, a right-wing party. This is especially odd given that the two liberal opposition parties were led by figures opposed to South Korea's military dictatorship, a dictatorship supported by many Democratic Justice Party members.

I'm really not aware of any other cases where this has taken place. If anyone is aware of another case, please comment.

Green breakthrough in New Brunswick

Today, the Canadian province of New Brunswick held an election for their parliament. The incumbent Progressive Conservative party (right-of-centre) was defeated, and the Liberal party (left-of-centre) was elected to a majority government, with 27 seats in a house of 49.

For a long time, New Brunswick (along with the rest of the Maritime provinces) was a strong two-party system, with the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives alternating in power. However, recent breakthroughs by New Democrats (left-of-centre, social democratic) have significantly altered this dynamic. The strongest example of this trend was in Nova Scotia, where a New Democrat government was elected in 2009 (but heavily defeated in 2013).

The New Brunswick New Democrats (awkward to say) won no seats at the last election, despite winning 10% of the vote. New leader Dominic Cardy decided that in order to get the party to be successful, they needed to become more moderate. To some extent, it worked. The party polled as high as 27%, and some polls put them above the governing Progressive Conservatives. However, a series of embarrassing mistakes in the campaign, including a spat with Liberal leader Brian Gallant over a Downfall Nazi parody video.

It now appears that the New Democrats will win no seats, despite winning 13% of the vote. Cardy has resigned after he failed to be elected in his electorate, winning 30% of the vote to Progressive Conservative Brian Macdonald's 35%. The New Democrat vote was spread too thinly across the province.

One problem for the New Democrats was the late drop in the polls for the Liberals. This may have scared New Democrat voters into voting Liberal in order to prevent a re-election of the Progressive Conservatives. Another issue was a vote split with the Greens. Cardy's centrist message may have attracted voters from the Liberals, but the late drop scared them back. Left-wing New Democrats, who might have been expected to support the party solidly, were isolated by Cardy's move away from their traditional positions, and voted Green as a protest. Former New Democrat leader Alison Brewer joined the Greens in protest against the changes.

In fact, the Greens were the big success story of the night. The party won 6.61% of the vote, an increase of 2% from the last election. A good result, but normally under the single-member plurality system, not enough for a seat. However, the Greens did win a seat. Leader David Coon was elected in the urban riding of Fredericton South in a close four-way race, becoming the third elected Green member of parliament in Canada.

Now, I don't know much about Green parties in New Brunswick. However, the New Brunswick Greens are rather new. They were only formed in 2010, and Coon is the party's second leader. The much older and more popular British Columbia Green Party took five elections to win their first Member of the Legislative Assembly, and the Ontario Greens have failed to win a seat, despite polling 8% at one election.

The result is all the more surprising when you consider that the Greens only won 6.6% of the vote, while the New Democrats won double that, but no seats.

Coon joins the rather small group of Greens who have won single-member plurality elections in single-member plurality only parliaments. There is Caroline Lucas, in the UK, the other two Greens in Canada, John Eder in the Maine House of Representatives and then... (if anyone knows any others, please comment).

In short, the New Brunswick Greens have pulled off a stunning coup. Winning a representative off 6% of the vote is a stunning result, given that in 1987 in New Brunswick the Progressive Conservatives won no seats off 28% of the vote (the Liberals won every seat). I don't know if it will be repeated, but it will certainly go down in Canadian political history