Michael Byers -- Way out in left field

Michael Byers has written an editorial published in the Toronto Star calling for all left-wing parties to form a coalition to seek to topple the Conservatives to prevent them from forming government. His editorial is shallow, lame, and typical lefty logic. It's also hard to read, many of his "paragraphs" consist of a single sentence, not that I usually criticize grammar, as my own grammar is not quite up to par, but even I noticed his short paragraphs.

Whoops, I am mis-characterizing his editorial, it is not a coalition, its just an agreement where the parties promise not to run candidates in each others ridings.

Let's take this blow by blow.

Negative ads have prejudiced voters against Michael Ignatieff, and brought Stephen Harper within reach of a majority government. The Conservatives now lead the Liberals by about 10 percentage points.

That is one interpretation, but a seriously wrong one. The ads were having little to no affect on Ignatieff until he decided to bring down the government and force an election that no one wanted. Many non-partisan, but committed Liberal voters totally switched off at that point, and were quite angry as they didn't want an election. I am sure my informal poll is fairly representative of average Canadians. Ignatieff did this to himself.

The situation seems unlikely to improve. The Prime Minister's divisive partisan tactics have diminished the public's respect for politicians in general. In just four years, he has changed the tone of media coverage and public discourse, shifting the mood of the nation toward cynicism and selfishness.

Any examples? Sure Harper is partisan, but he is hardly alone in this. Most MPs from all parties suffer from this. To blame just Harper is bordering on the ridiculous.

Liberal infighting has not helped, while the NDP has missed two opportunities – on climate change and macroeconomic policy – to capture the national imagination with bold ideas.

Indeed it hasn't. As for the bold ideas, they have been talked about the NDP for years and found wanting. Perhaps, the electorate don't like your ideas?

There is only one surefire way to prevent a Harper majority. The Liberals and NDP should agree to not run candidates against each other in the next campaign.

Ah yes, the non-coalition coalition. I suppose such crazy ideas as good policy are out of the question?

In each riding, the party whose candidate fared worst in the last election would pull its current candidate out, or refrain from nominating one.
That worked so well for Ms. May.

Both parties would win more seats, with the Liberals potentially forming a majority government.

Based solely on the results from October 2008, the agreement would, in itself, deliver 30 to 40 additional seats to the Liberals and another five to 10 seats to the NDP.

Says who? You? You have just lost every bit (of what little) credibility you had. Do you really think that every Liberal voter would switch to the NDP? You're complete insane to think that. I would wager that the majority of Liberal voters would vote Conservative over NDP in most ridings.

The Bloc Québécois would not be part of the deal but could be expected to win around 40 seats in total.

Importantly, what is proposed is not a coalition, but a one-time ceasefire between two opposition parties whose combined vote share last time was significantly higher (44.4 per cent versus 37.6 per cent) than the Conservatives.

Outside of one riding, the NDP are not really a factor in Quebec. And your percentages again assume (incorrectly) that all Liberal voters would vote in-mass for the NDP. That might be somewhat true for NDP voting Liberal, but not Liberal voting NDP.

No effort would be made to coordinate platforms, though the absence of debilitating head-to-head races between Liberals and New Democrats would direct both parties' attention onto the Conservatives.

Nor would the agreement extend to post-election power sharing. If the Liberals were in a position to form a minority government, they would be free to seek support from any of the other parties – including the Conservatives.

No consistent platform, but a coalition nevertheless. Mr Byers must really think Canadians are stupid.

The only post-election condition in the agreement should be an unqualified public commitment to holding a national referendum on proportional representation within the first year.

The commitment would include the provision of sufficient public funding to ensure in-depth discussion and widespread knowledge of the arguments both for and against the proposed change.

Oh man, not PR again?!?! Why oh why? Voters have consistently voted down all versions of PR, because they don't work. I have said it once, and I will say it again, no solution to the democratic deficit involves more politicians. PR would just lead to more minority governments.

Proportional representation would produce a much fairer allocation of seats than our current first-past-the-post system and boost voter turnout and political engagement by making every vote count.

Many New Democrats might wish to make the immediate introduction of proportional representation a condition of the ceasefire agreement, since a referendum might not produce the desired result.

Again, no facts, just statements. Why would PR affect voter turnout? A more likely fact is that people don't vote because people don't care. Either Liberal, or Conservative governments basically plot the same course, the ship is just tilted a little to either side depending on the party.

However, such an approach would enable the Prime Minister to make proportional representation the principal issue in the campaign, instead of his record and the alternative policies offered by the other parties.

The Prime Minister wouldn't need to make PR the central issue, he could make the coalition the central issue.

A ceasefire agreement would likely be opposed by some insiders, in both parties, who benefit from the existing system. It would certainly inconvenience some candidates who have already been nominated, and would have to stand down. Most, however, would probably accept that larger, more important interests are in play.
Some would oppose it for partisan reasons, some would oppose it because you, in your lefty stupid logic would restrict choice.

The ceasefire agreement, once struck, could be expanded to include the Green party, which has always sought proportional representation and would benefit substantially from it.

The Greens obtained nearly 1 million votes (6.8 per cent) but no parliamentary representation in the last election. They finished second in five races, though the party's only realistic chance of winning a seat in the next election is in the B.C. riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, where Elizabeth May is running and the Liberal finished second to the Conservative last time.

An arrangement could be made to rectify this lack of representation by giving all five second-place Greens a clear run in the next election, with May having that opportunity in her new riding – in return for the Green party withdrawing its candidates from every other race.

Ah yes, basically try and appoint 5 Green candidates, and again restrict choice to the other 303 ridings. Again, why do you the majority of Liberal and NDP voters would vote Green over the Conservatives? There is NO reason to think that.

The chances of the Liberals forming government appear to have slipped away. The future of the country is in the balance. Whether we like it or not, the parties of the progressive centre have reached a decision point.

Will we let an outdated electoral system deliver a majority Conservative government on the basis of the preferences of less than 40 per cent of voters – and less than 25 per cent of those Canadians who are eligible to vote?
What is so scary about a majority? We have suffered under Liberal majorities, some provinces have suffered under NDP majorities, again, Canada didn't disintegrate. You are just sore to have lost again. You would be more then happy for the Liberals of NDP to form a majority government with 38% of the vote like Chretien did, but you are not OK for the Conservatives to do the same.

You are a biased partisan hack with a shaky grasp of reality who write crap for the Star. Your entire premise assumes that Liberal voters will all switch to the NDP in those ridings. It is crazy to even think that.