Wow. That was quite an election. The Tories got a majority, moving from 143 to 167 seats (155 is necessary to get a majority), even though the percentage of people who voted for them barely moved (from 37.6% in 2008 to 39.6% yesterday). That’s due to the way votes translate into seats under our system.
The NDP received only 18.2% of the votes in 2008, but over 30.6 percent of voters chose the NDP in 2011. That 
translated in an increase in seats from 37 (2008) to 102 this time! The Liberals, well, their percentage of the vote dropped from 26.2% in 2008 to just 18.9% this time, leaving them with only 34 seats (down from 77). So, the mice did rise up, putting the NDP in the position of Official Opposition for the first time ever. Congratulations to my friend from the U. of Toronto Masters of Industrial Relations program, Matt Kellway, for winning the Toronto-Beaches riding for the NDP.
I’ll add a labour law point, since this is a labour law blog.
Note that only about 24% of Canadians actually voted Tory in this election, since just about 61% of eligible voters cast ballots (of which 39.6% voted Tory). Yet that is enough for a majority government in our system. The 71% of the population that did not vote Tory now must live with whatever policies and laws that government passes.
Consider now how our labour legislation determines whether workers have access to collective bargaining in Canada. A majority of workers must select unionization in order for those workers to have a right to collective bargaining. So if 55% of workers vote to unionize, and 45% vote not to, the union wins the right and legal obligation to represent all of the workers, even the 45% who did not want to be represented by the union. Keep in mind too, that the voter turnout in a union certification vote is regularly 100% or close to it (unlike political elections).
People who are against collective bargaining often say to me (and the media) that it is extremely “undemocratic” to have a system in which the minority of workers who did not support collective bargaining are nevertheless required to abide by the will of the majority. But I thought that that was exactly how a “democracy” works, at least the version of it we aspire to in Canada, isn’t it?
Unions might be happy doing away with the majority requirement in favour of a system where any worker who wants collective bargaining gets it. Our requirement for majority support is a very unusual model by international standards. But I suspect employers (and people who don’t like unions) prefer the majority requirement. But if you want a system based on “majority rules”, isn’t it hypocritical to then complain when the majority rules?
What do you think? Is it “undemocratic” for a union elected by a majority of workers to bargain a collective agreement that applies to all workers, even those that did not vote for the union?
If so, does that mean that allowing a majority government to be formed with less than 25% support of Canadians is equally, or even more undemocratic?
