User:Abigaildort/Party system

Provincial Party Systems
Party systems differ differently across Canada for each province, as different provinces have different priorities and values for their residents. Party systems are a guideline for political parties with different structures of behaviours, competition, and systems in interaction resulting in party competition. There are two ways of comparing provincial party systems in Canada. One being Conflict Intensity which is the extent to which parties challenge each other on options and priorities, some party systems features more competition when it comes to party options. Second being competitiveness, a measure of how close the average election is in terms of outcome, an uncompetitive system would show dominance in one party but competitiveness is good in sense that it gives a better sense of democracy. This leads to the two types of Party Systems that are common across the provinces in Canada; Centripetal Party Systems and Centrifugal Party Systems.


 * Centripetal Party Systems are most prevalent in Central and Atlantic Canada, due to regional, linguistic, religious, and ethnic cleavages. They are regions where typically one prominent party reigns. These Central and Atlantic Canada are where the Liberal Party has remained a strong political force prominently for decades.
 * Centrifugal Party System which has been polarized to describe party systems such as those in Western Canada. Competition between various different parties with vast differences in ideologies and values. Example being the Wild Rose Party of Alberta and their claims of being Alberta's primary Conservative Party.

Additionally, from elections based from 1960-1995 it was concluded that there is four different classifications of a party system for each of the 10 provincial party systems. These groupings of classifications has most likely changed since 1995, as there has been a rise in different political parties for different provinces since these times. The four categories include:


 * One-Party Dominant: Alberta
 * Traditional Two-Party: Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland
 * Three Party: Ontario, Manitoba
 * Polarized: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Quebec, New Brunswick

There has been a growing separation between Federal and Provincial political party systems, resulting in a separation of political perspectives typically associated with specific parties therefore fewer Provincial and Federal systems are symmetrical. Provincial systems for example, are simpler, stable, and often reflect the cleavages of each province; language, religion, class, ethnicity.

Party Systems in the Territories
Nunavut and the Northwest Territories do no operate party systems for their elections. During elections, candidates do not run for seats as they do in federal government, they campaign and are elected as independents. Therefore, both Territories operate under a consensus government. Due to Nunavut and the Northwest Territories smaller populations, many argue that the removal of party systems make it easier for voters to decide the person they are voting for, but the lack of parties may also cause some issues as well by; making it harder for voters to recognize the goals and priorities of candidates and the lack of an opposition makes it harder for identify issues during debates.

Party Systems Throughout History
According to the recent scholars, there have been four party systems in [Canada] at the federal level since Confederation, each with its own distinctive pattern of social support, patronage relationships, leadership styles, and electoral strategies. Political scientists disagree on the names and precise boundaries of the eras, however. Steve Patten identifies four party systems in Canada's political history

First Party System

 * The first party system emerged from pre-Confederation colonial politics, had its "heyday" from 1896 to 1911 and lasted until the Conscription Crisis of 1917, and was characterized by local patronage administered by the two largest parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Second Party System

 * The second system emerged following the First World War, and had its heyday from 1935 and 1957, was characterized by regionalism and saw the emergence of several protest parties, such as the Progressives, the Social Credit Party, and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation.

Third Party System

 * The third system emerged in 1963 and had its heyday from 1968 to 1983 and began to unravel thereafter. The two largest parties were challenged by a strong third party, the New Democratic Party. Campaigns during this era became more national in scope due to the electronic media, and involved a greater focus on leadership. The dominant policy of the era was Keynesian economics. The Election Act of 1974 was introduced during this period, allowing candidates party affiliation to appear on ballets, therefore an increased importance of party labels. The electoral system went from a candidate centred system to a party centred system, resulting in party leaders and the label of the candidate to play a major role in the deciding factor for voters. Leon Epstein characterized Canada as a two-party plus system, where as at the time only the Liberal and Conservative Party forming government, with the NDP present but no winning many seats.

Fourth Party System

 * The fourth party system has involved the rise of the Reform Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois, and the merger of the Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservatives. It saw most parties move to one-member-one-vote leadership contests, and a major reform to campaign finance laws in 2004. The fourth party system has been characterized by market-oriented policies that abandoned Keynesian policies, but maintained the welfare state. It was the elections of both 1997 and 2000 that showed that there was significant transformation in Canada's party system, showing they have undergone a transformation into a genuine multiparty system.

Fifth Party System

 * It could be argued that a fifth party system has emerged at some point over the past decade as Canadian politics is no longer defined by the regionalism and fiscally conservative orthodoxy of the 1990s and early 2000s. The current make-up of the House of Commons, dominated by three nationally oriented parties (Liberal, Conservative and NDP), bears a far more striking resemblance to that of the third party system rather than the fourth; the governing Liberals have arguably abandoned or loosened their commitment to fiscal conservatism and free market economics by returning to a more Keynesian outlook; and the left of centre New Democratic Party (NDP) has been a contender in the past two elections, having occupied the role of official opposition in between 2011 and 2015. This greatly differs from the post-1993 situation in which aside from the governing Liberals, Canada's two other nationally oriented political parties (the NDP and PC Party) were marginalised, allowing the opposition benches to be dominated by the Western-based Reform Party and separatist Bloc Quebecois. However, it is difficult to pinpoint precisely when the fourth party system came to a close. As mentioned earlier, the Canadian Alliance and PC Party merged in 2004 creating the Conservative Party of Canada, but the Bloc Quebecois continued to dominate Quebec, benefiting from First Past the Post, until 2011. The Liberals, in opposition to the governing Conservatives after 2006, gradually moved leftwards as centrist parties often do when in an opposition role to a conservative government.

Clarkson (2005) shows how the Liberal Party has dominated all the party systems, using different approaches. It began with a "clientelistic approach" under Laurier, which evolved into a "brokerage" system of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s under Mackenzie King. The 1950s saw the emergence of a "pan-Canadian system", which lasted until the 1990s. The 1993 election — categorized by Clarkson as an electoral "earthquake" which "fragmented" the party system, saw the emergence of regional politics within a four party-system, whereby various groups championed regional issues and concerns. Clarkson concludes that the inherent bias built into the first-past-the-post system, has chiefly benefited the Liberals.