138k views
4 votes
Multiparty Versus Two-Party Systems

Canadian Parliament
1.3% 1.3%
9.7%
15.9%
31.2%
Bloc Québécois
Conservative
Party
SOURCE: Parliament of Canada
40.6%
Independent
Vacant
New Democratic
Liberal Party
111th Congress
-0.4%
58.5%
Democratic Party
Republican Party
41.1%
Independents
SOURCE: Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives,
U.S. Senate, House Press Gallery, 2008


Which of the following inferences best represents the data presented in the chart?

A. Minor party should be called major parties because of their success.

B. Minor parties have never been relevant in politics since they never earned electoral votes.

C. Minor parties always earn electoral votes, and a percentage of the popular vote in every election

D. Minor parties generally receives smaller percentages of the popular vote with occasionally earning electoral votes.

2 Answers

4 votes

Answer:

The Canadian party system baffles outsiders and Canadians alike. Outsiders either cherry-pick details to suit a theory or just throw up their hands. Canadians wear the idiosyncrasy as a badge of honour; when looking for explanations they rarely look beyond the case. In The Canadian Party System: An Analytic History (UBC Press), I try to do the case justice from both a Canadian and a comparative perspective.

The system is anomalous in several ways. It defies the most powerful generalization in empirical political theory, Duverger’s Law. The law states that in a strongly majoritarian institutional context such as ours — most importantly, with votes counted within single-member districts — voters will concentrate on two and only two parties. Instead, Canada has had a multiparty system since at least the 1930s.

The system has spasms of massive volatility. Even though the dominant parties are among the oldest in the world, each has been to death’s door and back. In some provinces, the same citizens support fundamentally different party systems in provincial elections than in national ones. Although a party of labour exists (the NDP), the system’s class basis is weak. For most of the 20th century Canada’s political gap between Catholics and Protestants was as wide as any gap anywhere.

Finally, unlike most systems — and unlike all other systems with single-member districts — the Canadian system is dominated by a party of the centre. The Liberal Party of Canada manages to control the centre both on the classic left-right dimension and on Canada’s own “national” question. The anomaly of dominance from the centre is the key to understanding most of the other anomalies in the Canadian party system and yet begs explanation itself.

The place to start, then, is with the Liberal Party. Its dominance of Canada is a function of its dominance of Quebec. The Quebec electorate has been remarkably coordinated, both in concentration on one party at a time and in mobility between parties. These traits are then amplified by the electoral system. The rest of the country has rarely matched Quebec in electoral coherence, however. Quebec alone would put the Liberals halfway to a parliamentary majority.

User Neal Stublen
by
7.9k points
0 votes

The best inference that can be drawn from the data presented in the chart is: D. Minor parties generally receive smaller percentages of the popular vote with occasionally earning electoral votes.

Which of the following inferences best represents the data presented in the chart?

The graph displays how many votes each party got in the Canadian Parliament and the 111th Congress of the United States. It means that smaller political parties, shown by the lower numbers, usually get fewer votes than the big parties.

However, it also shows that smaller political parties sometimes get votes in elections, which means they can have some influence or representation in the political system, even though it's limited. This conclusion matches the information shown in the chart.

User Plato
by
7.7k points