Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:24:46.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Federal-Provincial Voting Patterns in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

Howard A. Scarrow
Howard A. Scarrow*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access

Extract

In nearly every recent commentary on Canadian political parties one observation has been repeatedly emphasized. It is that the Canadian electorate has shown an inclination to put in power at the provincial level parties which stand in opposition to the party which has been entrusted with power at Ottawa. The writers who have stressed this phenomenon have been impressed by the fact that during the latter years of their national ascendancy the Liberals were in control of only a few of the smaller provinces (by 1957 only Prince Edward Island, New Rrunswick, and, through a coalition, Manitoba), while in the other and larger provinces the Progressive Conservatives, C.C.F., Social Credit, or Union Nationale were firmly entrenched. From this observation three conclusions, either explicit or implicit, have generally been deduced. The first is that during the latter years of the Liberal régime the real opposition to the Government was not to be found at the Speaker's left in Ottawa, but rather in the provincial capitals. The second is that the individual Canadian voter has alternated his party choice at provincial and federal elections, and by so doing has demonstrated a type of voting behaviour which is not usually to be found in federations. The third conclusion is that in favouring one party provincially and another party nationally the Canadian voter is motivated by a calculated desire to balance the power of the one against the other. The purpose of this article is to examine the pattern of provincial and federal election results and to determine the extent to which these conclusions are supported by the available evidence.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , May 1960 , pp. 289 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, e.g.: Underhill, F. H., “Canadian Liberal Democracy in 1955” in Ferguson, G. V. and Underhill, F. H., Press and Party in Canada (Toronto, 1955), 27–46 Google Scholar; Wrong, Dennis, “The Pattern of Party Voting in Canada,” Public Opinion Quarterly, summer, 1957, 252–64Google Scholar; and Lipson, Leslie, “Party Systems in the United Kingdom and the Older Commonwealth,” Political Studies, Feb., 1959, 12–31.Google Scholar

2 There is no question but that a thorough examination of alternating party preferences should be based on an analysis of the popular vote. Alternating party victories simply identify the instances where the alternation of party preference has been most conspicuous, and do not take into account instances where alternation might have occurred but to an extent insufficient to affect the total outcome. As noted below, however, major difficulties are involved in trying to compare party vote for federal and provincial elections.

3 Beginning with the federal election of 1930 and ending with the federal election of 1957. Newfoundland is not included in the analysis. All calculations of seats and votes are based on data found in Canadian Parliamentary Guide, relevant editions.

4 The resolution of certain difficulties which arose in identifying alternating elections may be noted: (1) Ties in the number of federal seats won by each party are resolved in favour of the party with the largest popular vote. (2) Where no party won a majority of the seats in the provincial legislature, as in Manitoba during the later 1930's and 1940's, the party with the plurality is taken as the electorate's choice. (3) The measure of plurality is also used where no party won a majority of the province's seats in the federal Parliament. This occurred only in British Columbia. (4) In the 1945 and 1949 federal elections, Liberal and Progressive Conservative seats are combined in British Columbia, since during that period a Liberal-Conservative coalition was in power in the province. (5) It should be noted that in British Columbia, in the 1935 federal election and the 1941 provincial election, although a plurality of seats was won by the Liberals, the C.C.F. received a plurality of the popular vote. It might be argued, therefore, that 1935 should be counted as an alternating federal election, coming as it did between two provincial victories for the Liberals. However, the 1935 election was truly a four-way contest, and for the purpose of the analysis here it is difficult to attach to it any meaningful interpretation.

5 In these states the governor's term is for two or four years. In the two-term states, elections are, of course, also held in the even-numbered years between presidential elections.

6 For the influence of the results of presidential elections on those of gubernatorial elections, see Key, V. O., American State Politics (New York, 1956), chap. II.Google Scholar

7 These were California, Connecticut (from 1950), Idaho (from 1946), Maryland, New Jersey, New York (from 1938), Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming (from 1934). In figuring the number of alternating elections the California election of 1946 was not included, since Governor Warren ran on both the Republican and the Democratic ticket. In New Jersey, where gubernatorial elections fall every third year, the 1940 election happened to coincide with the presidential election, and it is included in the analysis.

8 These states (and the discrepancies in the two-party vote) were: Arizona (20.6), Colorado (11.1), Iowa (10.4), Kansas (22.5), Maine (30.1), Massachusetts (12.5), Michigan (10.6), Minnesota (6.4), Rhode Island (8.4), and Washington (9.1). The high discrepancy in Maine may be attributed to the holding of the gubernatorial election in September. The percentages are based on data found in Scammon, Richard M., ed., America Votes, 1956–1957 (New York, 1958).Google Scholar

9 Except for the presidential election of 1948, the percentages are based on the two-party vote.

10 The reason the Progressive Conservative vote offers the most accurate measure of alternation between Liberal and Conservative is explained below.

11 Available election data did not permit analysis for a longer period. Results of federal elections from 1937 to 1949 are taken from Overacker, Louise, The Australian Party System (New York, 1952), 332 Google Scholar; results of the 1951, 1954, and 1955 elections are compiled from Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, 12th ed., 1951–1956 (Canberra, 1957).Google Scholar State election results are taken from issues of The Statesman's Yearbook.

12 Underhill, , “Canadian Liberal Democracy in 1955,” 39–40.Google Scholar

13 Wrong, , “The Pattern of Party Voting in Canada,” 255.Google Scholar

14 New York, 1927, 1, 475.

15 See Webb, L. C., “The Australian Party System” in Davis, S. R. et al., The Australian Party System (Sydney, 1954), 114–15.Google Scholar

16 The table does not present a completely accurate picture of the voting strength of the C.C.F., since the party did not run candidates in every riding. The number of seats not contested by the C.C.F. were: in 1948, 9 (out of 90); in 1949, 7 (out of 83); in 1951, 13 (out of 90); in 1953, 18 (out of 85); in 1955, 17 (out of 98). The Liberals failed to contest two ridings in the 1955 election. (“Liberal Labour” candidates are included in the Liberal totals.) The Conservatives contested every riding in every election. (An unendorsed Conservative candidate is included in the Conservative totals.)

17 See Wrong, , “The Pattern of Party Voting in Canada,” 258.Google Scholar

18 Because of the redistribution which took place prior to the 1953 election, it was necessary to adjust the 1949 federal figures. The redistribution of provincial ridings after the 1951 election made it impractical to extend the analysis to include the 1955 provincial election.

19 However, two facts relating to the absolute vote polled by the parties are concealed by the gross statistics, and might be mentioned. First, while most areas showed a decline in the Conservative percentage of the vote from 1951 to 1953, in one-third (eighteen) of the areas the number of Conservative voters actually increased. Second, from 1949 to 1951 there were nine areas (including Toronto) where the number of Conservative voters actually decreased.

20 See Meisel, John, “Religious Affiliation and Electoral Behaviour,” this Journal, XXII, no. 4, Nov., 1956, 481–96.Google Scholar

21 Only the two-parry vote is considered.

22 See Campbell, Angus and Miller, Warren E., “The Motivational Basis of Straight and Split Ticket Voting,” American Political Science Review, 06, 1957, 293–312.Google Scholar