Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:16:55.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Friends at Court: Federalism and Provincial Elections on Prince Edward Island*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
Affiliation:
Acadia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Only in Prince Edward Island have voters tended to elect provincial administrations of the same party stripe as the federal government. The authorargues that this has not occurred purely by chance and that, in fact, provincial campaigns have historically revolved around the issue of being “in line” with Ottawa. Presently, support for federal-provincial partisan congruence is rooted in those Islanders who can be characterized as “political animals” as well as in the dominant groups of the Island's social structure. The author concludes that the deviating provincial election of 1982 does not represent a fundamental change in the Islanders’ political orientations.

Résumé

II n'y a que dans l'le-du-Prince-Édouard qu'on observe la tendance des électeurs à appuyer aux élections provinciales le parti au pouvoir dans le gouvernement fédéral. L'auteur prétend que cela n'est pas dû au hasard et que I'importance d'être du méme côte qu'Ottawa a souvent été un des enjeux principaux des campagnes électorates dans cette province. En outre, il n'y a pas que les partisans les plus militants de I'lle mais aussi les membres des groupes dominants de sa hiérarchie sociale qui soutiennent cette pratique de fidelité au gouvernement fédéral. L'auteur conclut que la déviation à cette norme lors de I'élection provinciale de 1982 ne représente pas un changement fondamental dans les orientations politiques des résidents de I'Île-du-Prince-Édouard.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 127 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1986

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 Chandler, Marsha A. and Chandler, William M., Public Policy and Provincial Politics (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. 1979), 65Google Scholar.

2 Clark, Eddie, interview with the author, Grand River, PEI, August 27, 1983Google Scholar.

3 Kinnon, Wayne E. Mac. The Life of the Party: A History of the Liberal Party in Prince Edward Island (Summerside: PEI Liberal Party, 1973), 99Google Scholar.

4 This tendency has been noted by a number of analysts. See, for example. MacKinnon, Frank, The Government of Prince Edward Island (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1951), 246;Google Scholar and Beck, J. Murray, “Elections” in Bellamy, David J., Pammett, Jon H. and Rowat, Donald C. (eds.). The Provincial Political Systems: Comparative Essays (Toronto: Methuen, 1976), 180–81Google Scholar.

5 In this context an “imminent” federal election would be one which occurred within the three months subsequent to the provincial vole.

6 Miljan, Toivo and Macnaughton, Bruce, “Federal-Provincial Party Support: The Case of the Waterloo Ridings,” paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, 1975, 36Google Scholar.

7 Reeves, William and Gibbins, Roger, “The Balance Theory: An Empirical Look at the Interdependency of Federal-Provincial Electoral Behaviour,” paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, 1976, 22Google Scholar.

8 Underhill, Frank H., In Search of Canadian Liberalism (Toronto: Macmillan, 1960). 237Google Scholar.

9 See, for example, Perlin, George and Peppin, Patti, “Variations in Party Support in Federal and Provincial Elections: Some Hypotheses.” this JOURNAL 4 (1971). 280–86Google Scholar.

10 Muller, Stephen. “Federalism and the Party System in Canada.” in Meekison, J. Peter (ed.), Canadian Federalism: Myth or Reality (Toronto: Methuen. 1968). 123–24Google Scholar. See also Dawson, R. MacGregor, The Government of Canada (5th ed.: Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1970), 484–86Google Scholar.

11 Wilson, John and Hoffman, David make a similar argument with respect to Ontario politics. See “The Liberal Party in Contemporary Ontario Politics,” this JOURNAL 3 (1970), 181Google Scholar.

12 Scarrow, Howard A., “Federal-Provincial Voting Patterns in Canada,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 26 (1960), 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 See, for example, the analysis of Miljan and Macnaughton, “Federal-Provincial Party Support.”

14 Scarrow, , “Federal-Provincial Voting Patterns,” 289Google Scholar.

15 Table I may exaggerate the forces of federal-provincial consistency. Whenever a federal election occurred within a three-month period subsequent to a provincial vote, three adjustments were made. In the first column, a provincial election result was deemed to be “consistent” if an administration was elected of the same party stripe as the existing or the impending federal government. In the second column, the higher of the two votes for the federal government party was utilized, and in the third column, the more positive swing to the federal government party was employed. Of course, these adjustments were only necessary in those instances in which an “imminent” federal election resulted in the election of a different federal government. Three additional points should be noted. First, the various coalition governments headed by the Manitoba Liberal-Progressives in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s have been treated as if they were “Liberal” administrations. Second, the British Columbia coalition elections of 1945 and 1949 have been eliminated from the analysis. Finally, and fora similar reason, the Alberta provincial elections of 1940 and 1944 have been removed from the second and third columns.

16 The provincial elections of 1927 and 1955 constitute exceptions to the generalization.

17 The Cltarlottetown Patriot. May 15. 1939. 6Google Scholar.

18 Patriot, September 8. 1943. 4Google Scholar.

19 Patriot, November 27. 1947. 1Google Scholar.

20 The Guardian. May 4. 1970. 3Google Scholar.

21 Patriot. July 23. 1923. 1Google Scholar.

22 Guardian. April 12. 1978. 3Google Scholar.

23 Patriot, December 10, 1947, 8Google Scholar.

24 Patriot. July 18. 1935. 11Google Scholar.

25 Patriot, April 14. 1951, 3Google Scholar.

26 See for example. Patriot, May 1. 1939, 1Google Scholar.

27 Patriot, July 21. 1919, 4Google Scholar. See also Patriot. July 12, 1919, 1Google Scholar.

28 Patriot, December 9, 1947. 1Google Scholar. See also Patriot, December 10, 1947, 8Google Scholar.

29 Guardian, May 5. 1970, 1Google Scholar. See also Guardian, May 8, 1970, 1Google Scholar.

30 Patriot, September 8, 1943, 4Google Scholar. See also Patriot, September 8, 1943, 4;Google ScholarPatriot, April 23, 1951, 3;Google Scholar and Patriot, April 24, 1951, 9Google Scholar.

31 Guardian, August 25, 1959, 16Google Scholar.

32 Guardian, August, 27, 1959, 1Google Scholar.

33 Guardian, August 28, 1959. 12Google Scholar.

34 Guardian, August 31, 1959, 1, 5Google Scholar.

35 Guardian, April 20, 1978, 19Google Scholar.

36 Patriot, September 7, 1943. 8Google Scholar.

37 Guardian, April 23, 1979, 3.Google Scholar

38 Guardian, August 23, 1959, 3. See also Guardian, May 6, 1970, 14.Google Scholar

39 Patriot November 15, 1947, 9. See also Patriot, September 7, 1943, 8, and Chronicle-Herald (Halifax), May 14, 1970, 7.

40 Guardian, April II, 1974, 1.Google Scholar

41 Patriot, December 10, 1947, 8.Google Scholar

42 Patriot, September 14, 1943, 4.Google Scholar

43 Patriot, July 12, 1919. 1.Google Scholar

44 Patriot, July 10, 1935, 9Google Scholar. See also Patriot, July 10, 1935, 1.

45 Patriot, July 27. 1931, I.Google Scholar

46 Patriot, September 10, 1943, 8.Google Scholar

47 Patriot. September 10, 1915, 4.Google Scholar

48 Patriot, September 13, 1943, 7Google Scholar. See also Patriot. September 10, 1943. 8.Google Scholar

49 Guardian, December 3. 1962. 7Google Scholar. See also Guardian, December 3, 1962. 15Google Scholar. and December 5, 1962, II.

50 Guardian, April 26, 1974. 3.Google Scholar

51 Guardian, May II, 1966. 22.Google Scholar See also Patriot, May 5, 1939, 5.Google Scholar

52 Patriot, September 8, 1943, 4. See also Patriot. July 21, 1931, 1.

53 Guardian, May 6, 1970, 14.Google Scholar

54 Guardian, September I, 1959, I.Google Scholar

55 The questionnaire was mailed to every resident in 4 of the Island's 16 provincial constituencies (Prince 2. Prince 3, Queens 4. and Kings 2) who had a listing in the telephone directory. These four constituencies were selected because, in aggregate form, the residents of Prince 2 and Prince 3 had displayed the greatest propensity for electing provincial MLAsof the same party stripe as the national government, while Queens 4 and Kings 2 had manifested the opposite tendency. As it turned out, no significant interconstituency differences in enthusiasm for federal-provincial partisan congruence were detected.

The following methodological biases should be noted. First, the constituencies selected were significantly more rural than the Island norm. Results from a comparable survey of Charlottetown and Summerside would be instructive. Second, employing listings from a telephone directory ensured an over-representation of males. While this did not initially seem to be a serious problem, there were, as will be shown later, some significant sexual differences with respect to support for interlevel partisan alignment. Third, those that responded to the questionnaire were likely more politically interested and active than those who failed to reply. Fourth, the survey was undertaken at a time when the federal and provincial governments were not “in line.” This “unusual” state of affairs may have had some impact on Islanders' awarenessof.and enthusiasm for. interlevel partisan alignment. Finally, as with all survey research, respondent reactivity may have shaped the data in an unspecifiable fashion.

56 Muller, “Federalism and the Party System in Canada.” 127.

57 The three questions which were aggregated to measure support for federal-provincial partisan congruence were:

(1) Would present relations between the provincial government and the federal government be any better if Joe Ghiz was the provincial premier rather than Jim Lee? (Yes/No/Don't know.)

(2) Would present relations between the provincial and the federal government be any better if Brian Mulroney was the federal prime minister rather than Pierre Trudeau? (Yes/No/Don't know.)

(3) Is it helpful to Prince Edward Island to have a provincial government of the same party as the federal government? (Yes/No/Don't Know.)

This index was constructed on the assumption that multiple measures are generally to be preferred to single measures in any attempt to deduce the presence of an underlying orientation. Such a strategy is particularly appropriate when the question that appears to tap most directly into this orientation (the third) is of the extreme valence variety. Were one to rely only on this measure, two related problems would ensue. First, there would be difficulties of sample size. Those who feel that having the same party in office at both federal and provincial levels does not help PEI are too small a group to permit an assessment of the impact of a wide range of variables. Second, there would, in any case, be reasonable doubts about the validity of correlations derived from the use of this single measure. Because far more respondents give a positive response to this question than one could reasonably expect might be directly influenced in the polling both by such a consideration, the measure does not seem to be sufficiently discriminating. That is. only by adding two other measures (questions [I] and [2] above) can one distinguish between those who might actually seek by their votes to secure interlevel partisan alignment and those who are merely providing a ritualistic response. (Nevertheless, that an affirmative reply to the third question should constitute a ritualistic response is, in itself, interesting.) Fortunately, a positive answer to the third question is strongly correlated (to the level of significance) with positive answers for each of the first two questions.

58 Of course, in the absence of comparative data from other provinces, an average aggregate score of 1.72 has relatively little meaning. To counter this problem, the author undertook a mail survey of Nova Scotia residents in the summer of 1984. From a randomly generated sample of 4,000, a total of 1.526 responses (or 38 per cent) were received. Given that province's ranking in Table I, the fact that the average Nova Scotian respondent had an aggregate score of only 1.52 is certainly supportive of the central thrust of this study.

59 Interview with the author. West Cape, PEI, August 28, 1983.

60 Interview with the author, Charlottetown, August 24, 1983. Similarly. Shane Hennessey, executive director of the provincial Conservatives, concluded that “overall, when you look at [being ”in line' with Ottawa], it's probably been to the benefit of PEI" (interview with the author, Charlottetown. August 24. 1983).

61 See, for example, Clarke, Harold D.. Jenson, Jane, LeDuc, Lawrence. and Pammett, Jon H., Absent Mandate: The Politics of Discontent in Canada (Toronto: Gage. 1984), 70.Google Scholar Admittedly, this consistency has not always been observable at the aggregate level. While Islanders were electing provincial Liberal administrations from 1966 to 1979, they were sending only 2 of a possible 12 Liberal MPs to Ottawa.

62 See, for example, Perlin, George, “Patronage and Paternalism: Politics in Newfoundland,” in Davies, D. I. and Herman, Kathleen (eds.). Social Space: Canadian Perspectives (Toronto: New Press, 1971), 190–96;Google Scholar and Neary, Peter, “Party Politics in Newfoundland, 1949–1949: A Survey and Analysis,” Journal of Canadian Studies 6 (1971), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63 Macpherson argued that the “quasi-colonial position of the western provinces made it a primary requirement of their provincial political system that they should be able to stand up to the national government” and that a “provincial party system in which each of the alternate parties was a subordinate section of a federal party had nothing to commend it as a weapon against the central government” (Democracy in Alberta: Social Credit and the Party System [Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1953], 21).Google Scholar

64 Statistics Canada, 69–69 Annual, unpublished printout (Matrix Number 275122763).

65 The three questions which were aggregated to measure political interest were:

(1) How much interest do you generally have in what is going on in politics? (A good deal/Some/Not much/Don't know.)

(2) Do you generally attend any meetings or gatherings during election campaigns? (Yes/No.)

(3) Do you generally read any party leaflets or reports of election speeches during election campaigns? (Yes/No.)

The four questions which were aggregated to measure political efficacy were:

(1) So many people vote in elections that it doesn't matter very much whether I vote or not. (Agree/Disagree/Don't know.)

(2) Sometimes government and politics seem so complicated that a person like me can't understand what's going on. (Agree/Disagree/Don't know.)

(3) If I felt strongly about an issue and let the government know. I believe they would take my views into account. (Agree/Disagree/Don't know.)

(4) How much do you feel that having elections makes the government pay attention to what the people think? (A good deal/Some/Not very much/Don't know.) The two questions which were aggregated to measure the perceived legitimacy of political patronage were:

(1) Is patronage an acceptable part of the political process? (Yes/No/Don't know.)

(2) Is it only natural for a government to reward first the people who supported it? (Yes/No/Don't know.)

66 Clarke et al. Absent Mandate, 44.

67 See Clarke, Harold D., Jenson, Jane, LeDuc, Lawrence, and Pammett, Jon H., Political Choice in Canada (abridged edition; Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1980), 37.Google Scholar

68 Guardian, September 22. 1982, 1.Google Scholar

69 Guardian. September 17, 1982. 1.Google Scholar

70 Guardian, September 1, 1982, 1.Google Scholar

71 Guardian, September 17, 1982, 3. See also, Guardian, September 29. 1982, I.

72 Interview with the author, Tyne Valley, PEI, August 27, 1983.

73 Interview with the author, Charlottetown, August 24, 1983.

74 Unfortunately, the genesis of this disposition is obscure. It may be, as Seymour Martin Lipset has argued (The First New Nation [New York: Basic Books, 1963], 7)Google Scholar that a society's political culture can be profoundly shaped by some formative event; any such occurrence must, however, have pre-dated the bounds of this study as references to being “in line” with Ottawa have been a consistent feature of twentieth-century provincial campaigns on the Island. In fact, given that PEl's electoral results over the last three decades of the nineteenth century also displayed an apparent inclination to federal-provincial partisan congruence, one might have to search pre-Confederation history for clues to this phenomenon's origins.

75 Interview with the author, Charlottetown, August 24, 1983.

76 Wilbur Macdonald, in an interview with the author, Charlottetown, August 24, 1983.