Canada's electoral history from 1867 to today
The nasty split on the Right
by Maurice Y. Michaud (he/him)
In 1968, Trudeaumania returned the Liberals to power with their first majority mandate since the Louis St-Laurent years. While Atlantic Canada was impervious to it and strongly favoured the Conservatives, even the West got enthralled, to the point that four Liberals were elected in Alberta and two in Saskatchewan. But by the 1972 election, the honeymoon was long over. Through the 1970s, Atlantic Canada gradually drifted towards the Liberals, while the West returned to its pattern of overwhelmingly supporting the right-of-centre. After a series of policy measures seen as working against their economic interests, and on-going resentment about having both English and French appear on their cereal boxes, the West felt increasingly alienated from the rest of the country.
The decisive tipping point from which echoes are still heard in the 21st century was the imposition of the National Energy Program in 1980. However, lacking a viable right-of-centre alternative, the West begrudgingly continued to vote for the Progressive Conservatives, viewing them as the least bad option. That was until Preston Manning founded the Reform Party of Canada in late 1987. Running only 72 candidates from Manitoba westward in the 1988 election, the party didn't enjoy much success in an election that was dominated by a single issue: free trade with the United States. But in the following years, a long series of acrimonious (and failed) constitutional debates, and an increasing sense that Ontario and Québec dominated the political discourse at the expense of the West, brought the Reform Party to build a strong base for itself just in time for the 1993 election, and the split on the right of the Canadian political spectrum began in earnest. The infighting lasted a decade, and the Liberals profited from it by winning three majority governments in a row.
So let's begin with 1993, which saw the most consequential federal general election of the late 20th century. Two of the three mainstream parties collapsed. Before this election, the NDP held the most seats it had ever had in Parliament, but more importantly, the PCs had been the governming party with a comfortable majority. But both parties failed to win the 12 seats required to retain their official party status in the Commons.
Canada |
35 → 1993 :: 25 Oct 1993 — 1 Jun 1997 — Majority LIB
Summary |
Government |
Opposition |
Unproductive votes |
Party |
Votes |
Seats |
Party |
Votes |
Seats |
Party |
Votes |
# |
% |
% |
# |
# |
% |
% |
# |
# |
% |
Parliament: 35 Majority
Majority=148 Ab.Maj.: +30 G.Maj.: +59
Population [1993]: 28,600,864 (est.)
Eligible: 19,814,718 Particip.: 69.96%
Votes: 13,862,010 Unproductive: 662,449
Seats: 295 1 seat = 0.34%
↳ Elec.Sys.: FPTP: 295
↳ By acclamation: 0 (0.00%)
Plurality: Votes LIB Seats LIB
Plurality: ↳ +3,088,707 (+22.60%)
Plurality: ↳ Seats: +123 (+41.69%)
Position2: Votes REF Seats BQ
|
Candidacies: 2,156 (✓ 295) m: 1,678 (✓ 242) f: 478 (✓ 53) LIB 295 BQ 75 REF 207 NDP 294 PC 295 IND 152 GRN 79 OTH 759
|
LIB |
5,647,952 |
41.32 |
60.00 |
177 |
BQ
REF
NDP
PC
IND |
1,846,024
2,559,245
939,575
2,186,422
20,343 |
13.51
18.72
6.87
16.00
0.15 |
18.31
17.63
3.05
0.68
0.34 |
54
52
9
2
1 |
IND
GRN
OTH
REJ
ABS |
89,050
32,979
346,081
194,339
5,952,708 |
0.65
0.24
2.53
1.40
—— |
OTH → NP 171 NLP 231 CHP 59 LBT 52 ABOL 80 CAN 56 CWC 59 ML 51
|
|
Jean Chrétien's Liberals obviously performed better than any other party, but hidden behind their 30-seat majority is the fact that they obtained only 41.32% of the popular vote nationwide. That could hardly be called a massive love affair, although they were quick to counter that they had representation from coast to coast to coast. But while their sweep of all but one seat in Ontario certainly looked impressive, how much of it did they owe to vote splitting between the battered PCs and the fledging Reformers?
To find the answer, let's:
- Consider REF the party causing the vote splitting and PC the one affected by it.
- Set aside the 147 ridings where the person elected:
- had a clear majority (50%+1) and represented neither REF nor PC
- or represented PC and thus wasn't affected by vote splitting,
which leaves us with 148 ridings.
- Transfer the votes received by REF to PC if the latter did not already win the riding.
- Recalculate the results in each of those 148 ridings to find the ones where the winning party would have been different.
Thus we could conclude that there would have been 99 differences.
Seats won due to vote splitting
LIB 43 NDP 4 |
Seats won by the spoiler party REF 52 |
Riding |
Alternative |
LIB |
BQ |
REF |
NDP |
PC |
IND |
|
|
|
Election →
| 177 |
54 |
52 |
9 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
Details
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
51 |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
50 |
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
49 |
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
48 |
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
47 |
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
46 |
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
45 |
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
44 |
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
43 |
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
PC REF +2,557 (40.03%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
176 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
PC REF +4,390 (48.34%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
175 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
PC REF +3,473 (45.66%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
174 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
42 |
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
41 |
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
40 |
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
39 |
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
38 |
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
37 |
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
36 |
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
35 |
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
34 |
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
33 |
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
32 |
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
31 |
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
30 |
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
PC REF +443 (34.97%) |
NDP |
→ |
PC |
|
|
|
8 |
28 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
29 |
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
28 |
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
27 |
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
26 |
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
25 |
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
24 |
|
34 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
23 |
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
22 |
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
21 |
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
20 |
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
19 |
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
18 |
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
17 |
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
16 |
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
15 |
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
14 |
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
13 |
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
12 |
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
11 |
|
47 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
10 |
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
PC REF +7,476 (49.96%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
173 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
9 |
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
8 |
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
7 |
|
52 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
6 |
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
PC REF +7,414 (42.56%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
172 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
PC REF +83 (39.62%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
171 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
PC REF +6,436 (48.93%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
170 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
PC REF +470 (38.02%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
169 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
PC REF +7,269 (52.78%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
168 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
PC REF +4,532 (45.30%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
167 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
5 |
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
PC REF +2,331 (47.21%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
166 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
PC REF +1,109 (47.07%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
165 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
PC REF +2,096 (37.18%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
164 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
|
NB |
PC REF +3,020 (52.43%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
163 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
|
NL |
PC REF +412 (45.10%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
162 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
NS |
PC REF +1,642 (47.90%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
161 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
NS |
PC REF +3,056 (49.71%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
160 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +2,077 (48.35%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
159 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +2,732 (49.54%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
158 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +6,542 (50.87%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
157 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +11,100 (54.99%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
156 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +1,992 (47.96%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
155 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +3,521 (49.73%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
154 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +3,949 (45.60%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
153 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +12,898 (58.43%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
152 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +1,389 (47.95%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
151 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +2,471 (49.10%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
150 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +1,723 (48.74%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
149 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +877 (48.49%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
148 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +35 (47.18%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
147 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +2,420 (49.86%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
146 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +6,289 (50.40%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
145 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +2,315 (43.93%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
144 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +3,841 (49.16%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
143 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +2,124 (48.82%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
142 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +2,895 (49.48%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
141 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
4 |
|
87 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +7,523 (53.83%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
140 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +7,773 (50.66%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
139 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +4,756 (49.77%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
138 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +13,630 (59.71%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
137 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +11,487 (55.53%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
136 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
3 |
|
93 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
PC REF +2,644 (39.86%) |
NDP |
→ |
PC |
|
|
|
7 |
94 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
2 |
|
95 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
PC REF +2,997 (38.39%) |
NDP |
→ |
PC |
|
|
|
6 |
96 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
PC REF +1,847 (39.28%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
135 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
PC REF +4,451 (45.66%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
134 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
1 |
|
99 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
PC REF +3,570 (42.64%) |
NDP |
→ |
PC |
|
|
|
5 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
|
0 |
|
101 |
|
|
|
|
|
Redistribution → |
134 |
54 |
0 |
5 |
101 |
1 |
|
|
|
Indeed, vote splitting gave the Liberals 43 seats, with more than half (24) being in Ontario. And as sad as the New Democrats' performance was, they, too, benefitted from vote splitting in the West. They would have been reduced to only five seats if the right had been united, and one of them would NOT have been Svend Robinson's!
The grievance that Canadian conservatism had been dominated by the East at the expense of the West had gained credence by 1997. Conservative-minded spirits in the East viewed the Reform Party as too extreme, while those in the West viewed the Progressive Conservatives as too soft. There were indeed two solitudes within the conservative family, but whenever one of them dared to suggest a rapprochement, they expected that it would be on their terms. The PCs wanted to believe that the spanking they received in 1993 was simply a result of the wear of power, and people would eventually return to the party of John A. But Reformers believed that they represented the real future of conservatism in Canada. History would reveal that the latter were right, but they would have to wait six more years before seeing an end to the split. In 1997, the civil war within this political family made its members blind to the vulnerability of the Liberals who had angered a lot of people in their first mandate.
Canada |
36 → 1997 :: 2 Jun 1997 — 26 Nov 2000 — Majority LIB
Summary |
Government |
Opposition |
Unproductive votes |
Party |
Votes |
Seats |
Party |
Votes |
Seats |
Party |
Votes |
# |
% |
% |
# |
# |
% |
% |
# |
# |
% |
Parliament: 36 Majority
Majority=151 Ab.Maj.: +5 G.Maj.: +9
Population [1997]: 29,818,012 (est.)
Eligible: 19,672,879 Particip.: 66.96%
Votes: 13,172,106 Unproductive: 380,551
Seats: 301 1 seat = 0.33%
↳ Elec.Sys.: FPTP: 301
↳ By acclamation: 0 (0.00%)
Plurality: Votes LIB Seats LIB
Plurality: ↳ +2,481,197 (+19.11%)
Plurality: ↳ Seats: +95 (+31.57%)
Position2: Votes REF Seats REF
|
Candidacies: 1,672 (✓ 301) m: 1,262 (✓ 239) f: 410 (✓ 62) LIB 301 REF 227 BQ 75 NDP 301 PC 301 IND 76 GRN 79 OTH 312
|
LIB |
4,994,277 |
38.46 |
51.50 |
155 |
REF
BQ
NDP
PC
IND |
2,513,080
1,385,821
1,434,509
2,446,705
17,163 |
19.35
10.67
11.05
18.84
0.13 |
19.93
14.62
6.98
6.64
0.33 |
60
44
21
20
1 |
IND
GRN
OTH
REJ
ABS |
43,596
55,583
95,140
186,232
6,500,773 |
0.34
0.43
0.73
1.41
—— |
Difference since the previous general election: +6 seats
OTH → NLP 136 CHP 53 ACT 58 ML 65
|
|
On election night, as the results came in from Atlantic Canada, probably many were the Liberals who were clutching their pearls. They had swept up all but one of the region's 32 seats in 1993, the holdout being the one of two seats the PCs had managed to hold, namely Elsie Wayne's in Saint John. But in 1997, they exited the region with only 11 seats — five through vote splitting and two fewer than the PCs, but three more than — damn! — the NDP. It looked like it was going to be a long night!
Then encouraging signs emerged from Québec. The Bloc Québécois was still strong but dropped to 44 seats compared to their 52 in 1993, and the Liberals were winning the popular vote. The PCs also felt encouraged, picking up four seats in addition to their leader's. Moreover, "Fortress Ontario" was holding. But how much of that was due to vote splitting?
To find the answer, let's:
- Consider REF the party causing the vote splitting and PC the one affected by it.
- Set aside the 92 ridings where the person elected:
- had a clear majority (50%+1) and represented neither REF nor PC
- or represented PC and thus wasn't affected by vote splitting,
which leaves us with 209 ridings.
- Transfer the votes received by REF to PC if the latter did not already win the riding.
- Recalculate the results in each of those 209 ridings to find the ones where the winning party would have been different.
Thus we could conclude that there would have been 102 differences.
Seats won due to vote splitting
LIB 38 NDP 4 |
Seats won by the spoiler party REF 60 |
Riding |
Alternative |
LIB |
REF |
BQ |
NDP |
PC |
IND |
|
|
|
Election →
| 155 |
60 |
44 |
21 |
20 |
1 |
|
|
|
Details
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
59 |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
58 |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
57 |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
56 |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
55 |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
54 |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
53 |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
52 |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
51 |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
50 |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
49 |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
PC REF +544 (47.68%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
154 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
48 |
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
PC REF +1,509 (47.13%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
153 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
47 |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
46 |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
45 |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
44 |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
43 |
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
42 |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
41 |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
40 |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
39 |
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
38 |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
37 |
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
36 |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
35 |
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
34 |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
33 |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
32 |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
31 |
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
30 |
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
29 |
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
28 |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
27 |
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
26 |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
25 |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
24 |
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
23 |
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
22 |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
21 |
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
20 |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
19 |
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
PC REF +182 (44.25%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
152 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
18 |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
17 |
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
16 |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
15 |
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
14 |
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
13 |
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
PC REF +1,039 (44.46%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
151 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
PC REF +852 (36.39%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
150 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
12 |
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
11 |
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
PC REF +1,137 (46.04%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
149 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
10 |
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
9 |
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
PC REF +4,158 (51.40%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
148 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
8 |
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
|
NB |
PC REF +6,398 (51.93%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
147 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
NB |
PC REF +1,314 (44.26%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
146 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
NL |
PC REF +1,737 (45.56%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
145 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
|
NS |
PC REF +2,303 (38.66%) |
NDP |
→ |
PC |
|
|
|
20 |
83 |
|
|
|
|
NS |
PC REF +5,114 (42.86%) |
NDP |
→ |
PC |
|
|
|
19 |
84 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +3,228 (49.44%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
144 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +407 (47.36%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
143 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +9,404 (56.12%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
142 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +2,964 (50.05%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
141 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +2,393 (41.71%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
140 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +4,892 (52.58%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
139 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +2,176 (48.08%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
138 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +3,916 (48.74%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
137 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +1,563 (46.66%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
136 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +1,209 (48.11%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
135 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +5,873 (52.07%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
134 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +1,827 (48.26%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
133 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +6,989 (53.89%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
132 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +5,053 (50.58%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
131 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +878 (47.67%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
130 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +36 (47.75%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
129 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +3,021 (44.87%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
128 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +7,958 (53.57%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
127 |
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +4,592 (52.35%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
126 |
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +670 (45.51%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
125 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +5,818 (52.22%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
124 |
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +2,437 (49.14%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
123 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +11,280 (57.40%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
122 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +451 (44.39%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
121 |
|
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +13,102 (58.55%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
120 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +2,279 (49.01%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
119 |
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +4,164 (50.50%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
118 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC REF +1,611 (48.44%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
117 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
7 |
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
6 |
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
PC REF +539 (37.08%) |
NDP |
→ |
PC |
|
|
|
18 |
115 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
5 |
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
4 |
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
3 |
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
2 |
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
1 |
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
REF |
→ |
PC |
|
0 |
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
|
YT |
PC REF +1,419 (39.20%) |
NDP |
→ |
PC |
|
|
|
17 |
122 |
|
|
|
|
|
Redistribution → |
117 |
0 |
44 |
17 |
122 |
1 |
|
|
|
Fortress Ontario was partially a house of cards because, of the 38 seats the Liberals won through vote splitting, 28 were there. For its part, the NDP picked up four in this manner: two in Nova Scotia, one in Saskatchewan, and the Yukon seat. But what jumps out is that the conservative family would have formed a minority government, albeit an extremely weak one. Yet a "majority" government with only 38.46% of the popular vote? Talk about being lucky!
Come the 2000 general election, some movement had occurred since 1997, in that the Reformers, having much more representation in the Commons than the Progressive Conservatives, understood that they had to be the ones to take on the initiative of uniting the right. They had hoped that rebranding themselves as the Canadian Alliance would attract right-of-centre sympathizers in the East, but former prime minister Joe Clark, who had returned to politics to lead the PCs, seemed to regard this attempt as presenting a wolf in sheep's clothing, and thus stayed the course with his party. Preston Manning had lost his bid to lead the Alliance, so instead Clark challenged Stockwell Day on his right and Jean Chrétien on his left. This continued disunity suited the Liberal Party, making its own internal struggle to have Paul Martin replace Chrétien seem like a mere friendly disagreement. With the ink barely dry on the Alliance's certification papers, Chrétien called an early election, and the right remained confined to the opposition.
Canada |
37 → 2000 :: 27 Nov 2000 — 27 Jun 2004 — Majority LIB
Summary |
Government |
Opposition |
Unproductive votes |
Party |
Votes |
Seats |
Party |
Votes |
Seats |
Party |
Votes |
# |
% |
% |
# |
# |
% |
% |
# |
# |
% |
Parliament: 37 Majority
Majority=151 Ab.Maj.: +22 G.Maj.: +43
Population [2000]: 30,594,030 (est.)
Eligible: 21,211,657 Particip.: 61.27%
Votes: 12,997,149 Unproductive: 429,654
Seats: 301 1 seat = 0.33%
↳ Elec.Sys.: FPTP: 301
↳ By acclamation: 0 (0.00%)
Plurality: Votes LIB Seats LIB
Plurality: ↳ +1,975,063 (+15.36%)
Plurality: ↳ Seats: +106 (+35.21%)
Position2: Votes CA Seats CA
|
Candidacies: 1,808 (✓ 301) m: 1,436 (✓ 239) f: 372 (✓ 62) LIB 301 CA 298 BQ 75 NDP 298 PC 291 GRN 111 OTH 348 IND 86
|
LIB |
5,251,978 |
40.85 |
57.14 |
172 |
CA
BQ
NDP
PC |
3,276,915
1,377,727
1,093,853
1,567,022 |
25.49
10.72
8.51
12.19 |
21.93
12.62
4.32
3.99 |
66
38
13
12 |
GRN
OTH
IND
REJ
ABS |
104,422
130,789
55,031
139,412
8,214,508 |
0.81
1.02
0.43
1.07
—— |
First general election that included the new territory of Nunavut. PC Last general election for the original Conservative Party of Canada.
CA Only general election for this party (former Reform Party and future Conservative Party of Canada).
OTH → MP 73 ACT 70 NLP 69 ML 84 COMM 52
|
|
The Liberals clearly did better than in 1997, garnering 2% more of the popular vote. As for Reform's rebranding as the Canadian Alliance, it utterly failed against Fortress Ontario, and the PCs lost some ground compared to '97 but at least managed to keep (barely) its official party status in the Commons. So what role did vote splitting play this time in handing the Liberals their third majority government?
To find the answer, let's:
- Consider CA the party causing the vote splitting and PC the one affected by it.
- Set aside the 121 ridings where the person elected:
- had a clear majority (50%+1) and represented neither CA nor PC
- or represented PC and thus wasn't affected by vote splitting,
which leaves us with 180 ridings.
- Transfer the votes received by CA to PC if the latter did not already win the riding.
- Recalculate the results in each of those 180 ridings to find the ones where the winning party would have been different.
Thus we could conclude that there would have been 102 differences.
Seats won due to vote splitting
LIB 34 NDP 2 |
Seats won by the spoiler party CA 66 |
Riding |
Alternative |
LIB |
CA |
BQ |
NDP |
PC |
|
|
|
|
Election →
| 172 |
66 |
38 |
13 |
12 |
|
|
|
|
Details
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
65 |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
64 |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
63 |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
62 |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
61 |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
60 |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
59 |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
58 |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
57 |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
56 |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
55 |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
PC CA +2,276 (48.83%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
171 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
54 |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
53 |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
52 |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
51 |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
50 |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
49 |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
48 |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
47 |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
46 |
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
45 |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
44 |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
AB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
43 |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
PC CA +516 (38.52%) |
NDP |
→ |
PC |
|
|
|
12 |
37 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
42 |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
41 |
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
40 |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
39 |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
38 |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
37 |
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
36 |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
35 |
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
34 |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
33 |
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
32 |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
31 |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
30 |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
29 |
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
28 |
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
27 |
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
26 |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
25 |
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
24 |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
23 |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
22 |
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
21 |
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
20 |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
19 |
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
18 |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
17 |
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
PC CA +472 (45.78%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
170 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
PC CA +328 (43.49%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
169 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
BC |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
16 |
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
PC CA +7,659 (56.17%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
168 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
15 |
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
14 |
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
13 |
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
MB |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
12 |
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
NB |
PC CA +5,558 (53.73%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
167 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
NB |
PC CA +9,420 (62.64%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
166 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
|
NS |
PC CA +5,878 (52.69%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
165 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +4,802 (51.08%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
164 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +3,015 (50.94%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
163 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +565 (47.97%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
162 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +1,276 (48.25%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
161 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +1,508 (48.51%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
160 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +4,374 (51.45%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
159 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +3,112 (49.92%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
158 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +310 (47.52%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
157 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +13,389 (61.16%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
156 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +6,462 (53.83%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
155 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
11 |
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +7,885 (56.26%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
154 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +7,276 (53.35%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
153 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +169 (46.35%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
152 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +69 (46.07%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
151 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +59 (47.86%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
150 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +359 (43.87%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
149 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +2,652 (48.40%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
148 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +9,324 (57.38%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
147 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +4,342 (50.70%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
146 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
10 |
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +2,544 (49.90%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
145 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +1,401 (47.93%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
144 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +673 (48.33%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
143 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +1,270 (41.09%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
142 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +3,177 (50.73%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
141 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
ON |
PC CA +1,210 (48.98%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
140 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
|
PE |
PC CA +224 (49.32%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
139 |
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
9 |
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
8 |
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
7 |
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
PC CA +1,039 (41.42%) |
NDP |
→ |
PC |
|
|
|
11 |
106 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
6 |
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
5 |
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
4 |
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
3 |
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
2 |
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
1 |
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
|
SK |
Transfer |
CA |
→ |
PC |
|
0 |
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
|
YT |
PC CA +357 (35.18%) |
LIB |
→ |
PC |
138 |
|
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
|
|
Redistribution → |
138 |
0 |
38 |
11 |
114 |
|
|
|
|
This time, 25 of the 34 cases of vote splitting favouring the Liberals were in Ontario, while the NDP picked up two in this manner: one in British Columbia and the other in Saskatchewan.
Clark formed the Democratic Representative Coalition in September 2001 in an attempt to unite the right on his terms, but failed. Around the same time, several members of the Alliance caucus, disappointed by their 2000 election results, turned on Day, leading the way to Stephen Harper becoming their leader in 2002. Peter MacKay became PC leader in May 2003, having reached the position after striking a deal with David Orchard during the leadership convention, promising never to have an alliance with the Alliance — a promise on which he reneged a few months later. By Christmas 2003, both the Alliance and the PCs ceased to exist and, together, became the modern-day Conservative Party of Canada, with Clark being granted permission to be designated as a PC for the remainder of his term.
In May 2004, Martin, by then the Liberal leader and prime minister, called an early election. Was he perhaps pulling Page 2000 of the Chrétien playbook, in the hope of catching the new Conservative ill-prepared for an election?
Canada |
38 → 2004 :: 28 Jun 2004 — 22 Jan 2006 — Minority LIB
Summary |
Government |
Opposition |
Unproductive votes |
Party |
Votes |
Seats |
Party |
Votes |
Seats |
Party |
Votes |
# |
% |
% |
# |
# |
% |
% |
# |
# |
% |
Parliament: 38 Minority
Majority=155 Ab.Maj.: -20 G.Maj.: -38
Population [2004]: 31,550,768 (est.)
Eligible: 22,466,621 Particip.: 60.91%
Votes: 13,683,591 Unproductive: 859,272
Seats: 308 1 seat = 0.32%
↳ Elec.Sys.: FPTP: 308
↳ By acclamation: 0 (0.00%)
Plurality: Votes LIB Seats LIB
Plurality: ↳ +962,722 (+7.10%)
Plurality: ↳ Seats: +36 (+11.69%)
Position2: Votes CPC Seats CPC
|
Candidacies: 1,685 (✓ 308) m: 1,291 (✓ 243) f: 394 (✓ 65) LIB 308 CPC 308 BQ 75 NDP 308 IND 65 GRN 308 OTH 313
|
LIB |
4,982,220 |
36.73 |
43.83 |
135 |
CPC
BQ
NDP
IND |
4,019,498
1,680,109
2,127,403
15,089 |
29.63
12.39
15.68
0.11 |
32.14
17.53
6.17
0.32 |
99
54
19
1 |
IND
GRN
OTH
REJ
ABS |
49,775
582,247
108,361
118,889
8,783,030 |
0.37
4.29
0.79
0.87
—— |
Difference since the previous general election: +7 seats
CPC First general election for the modern Conservative Party of Canada (merger of the Conservative Reform Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party).
OTH → CHP 62 MP 71 PCP 16 ACT 45 ML 76 COMM 35 LBT 8
|
|
In any case, while the Conservatives did not win, they did manage to reduce the Liberals to minority status. And eighteen months later, they would go on to form their first minority government. But what emerges from the data is that none of the Liberals' majorities should have been majorities, and even one of them should have been a minority... for the "conservatives."
© 2019, 2024 :: PoliCan.ca (
Maurice Y. Michaud)
Pub.: 21 May 2023 11:51
Rev.: 29 May 2023 01:36 (but data presented dynamically)