Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:17:49.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Emergence of Parties in the Canadian House of Commons (1867–1908)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2013

Jean-François Godbout  and
Bjørn Høyland
Jean-François Godbout*
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Bjørn Høyland*
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
*
Jean-François Godbout, Département de science politique, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal QC H3C 3J7. Email: jean-francois.godbout@umontreal.ca
Bjørn Høyland, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, PO Box 1097, Blindern NO-0317 Oslo. Email: bjorn.hoyland@stv.uio.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This study analyses legislative voting in the first ten Canadian Parliaments (1867–1908). The results demonstrate that party unity in the House of Commons dramatically increased over time. From the comparative literature on legislative organization, we identify three factors to explain this trend: partisan sorting, electoral incentives and negative agenda control. Our empirical analysis shows that intraparty conflict is primarily explained by the opposition between Anglo-Celtic/Protestants and French/Catholic members of Parliament. Once lawmakers sort into parties according to their religious affiliations, we observe a sharp increase in voting unity within the Liberal and Conservative caucuses. Ultimately, our results highlight the importance of territorial and socio-cultural conflicts, as well as agenda control, in explaining the emergence of parties as cohesive voting groups in the House of Commons.

Résumé. Cette étude analyse le vote législatif dans les dix premiers parlements canadiens (1867–1908). Les résultats démontrent que l'unité partisane à la Chambre des communes a augmenté dramatiquement durant cette période. En nous basant sur les principales théories liées à l'organisation des législatures, nous identifions trois facteurs pour expliquer cette tendance : la classification partisane; les pressions électorales; et le contrôle de l'agenda législatif. Nos analyses empiriques confirment que les conflits intra-partisans au Parlement s'expliquent principalement par l'opposition entre les députés Anglos-Celtiques/Protestants et Francos/Catholiques. À partir du moment où les députés commencent à rejoindre les principaux partis selon leur groupe religieux, nous observons un accroissement important de l'unité législative au sein des caucus libéral et conservateur. Les résultats de cette recherche soulignent l'importance des conflits territoriaux et socioculturels, mais aussi de l'agenda législatif, pour expliquer l'émergence des partis politiques comme groupes cohésifs à la Chambre des communes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 773 - 797
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2013 

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

Aldrich, John H. 2011. Why Parties? A Second Look. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H. and Rhode, David W.. 2001. “The Logic of Conditional Party Government: Revisiting the Electoral Connection.” In Congress Reconsidered, ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I.. 7th ed. Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Beck, J. Murray. 1968. Pendulum of Power: Canada's Federal Elections. Scarborough ON: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Blais, André. 2005. “Accounting for the Electoral Success of the Liberal Party in Canada.” Presidential address to the Canadian Political Science Association London, Ontario, June 3. Canadian Journal of Political Science 38 (4): 821–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourinot, Sir John George. 1884. Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, with an Introductory Account of the Origin and Growth of Parliamentary Institutions in the Dominion of Canada. Montreal: Gazette Printing Company.Google Scholar
Brady, David W. and Althoff, Phillip. 1974. “Party Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1890–1910: Elements of a Responsible Party System.” Journal of Politics 36: 753–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David W., Cooper, Joseph and Hurley, Patricia A.. 1979. “The decline of party in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1887–1968.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 4: 381–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, Alan C. 1968. “The Electoral System and the Party System in Canada, 1921–1965.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 1 (1): 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John. 2007. “Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carty, R. Kenneth. 1988. “Three Canadian Party Systems: An Interpretation of the Development of National Politics.” In Party Democracy in Canada: The Politics of National Party Convention, ed. Perlin, George. Scarborough ON: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Cornell, Paul G. 1963. The Alignment of Political Groups in Canada 1841–1867. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1987. The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespin, Michael H., Rohde, David W. and Vander Wielen, Ryan J.. 2013. “Measuring Variations in Party Unity Voting: An Assessment of Agenda Effects.” Party Politics 19(3): 432–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewan, Torun and Spirling, Arthur. 2011. “Strategic Opposition and Government Cohesion in Westminster Democracies.” American Political Science Review 102 (2): 337–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterbrook, William Thomas and Aitken, Hugh G.J.. 1988. Canadian Economic History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggleston, Stephen D. 1988. Party Cohesion in the Early Post-Confederation. Master of Arts thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Google Scholar
Epstein, Leon D. 1964. “A Comparative Study of Canadian Parties.” American Political Science Review 58 (1): 46–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, C.E.S. 1987. The Parliament of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godbout, Jean-Francois and Høyland, Bjørn. 2011. “Legislative Voting in the Canadian Parliament.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 367–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamelin, Jean. 1965. Aperçu de la politique canadienne au XIXe siècle. Québec: Revue Culture.Google Scholar
Hare, John E. 1973. “L'Assemblée législative du Bas-Canada, 1792–1814, députation et polarisation politique.” Revue d'histoire de l'Amérique française 27 (3): 361–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon. 2002. “Parliamentary Behavior with Two Principals: Preferences, Parties, and Voting in the European Parliament.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 688–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon. 2004. “Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: Explaining Voting-Defection in the European Parliament.” World Politics 56 (1): 194–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon, Noury, Abdul and Roland, Gerard. 2005. “Power to the Parties: Cohesion and Competition in the European Parliament, 1979–2001.” British Journal of Political Science 35 (2): 209–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon and Noury, Abdul. 2011. “Government-Opposition of Left-Right? The Institutional Determinants of Voting in Legislatures” Unpublished manuscript. Google Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2010. “Selection Effects in Roll Call Votes.” British Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 225–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Christopher J. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornberg, Allan and Mishler, William. 1976. Influence in Parliament: Canada. Durham NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. “Where's the Party?” British Journal of Political Science 23 (2): 235–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 2000. “Party Discipline and Measures of Partisanship.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 212–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebo, Matthew J., McGlynn, Adam J. and Koger, Gregory. 2007. “Strategic Party Government: Party Influence in Congress, 1789–2000.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 464–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M. and Rokkan, Stein. 1967. “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction.” In Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, ed. Lipset, Seymour M. and Rokkan, Stein. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Long, Scott J. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Massicotte, Louis. 1989. “Cohésion et Dissidence à l'Assemblée Nationale Depuis 1867.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 22 (3): 505–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, Audrey and Bosc, Marc. 2009. House of Commons Procedure and Practice. 2nd ed. Ottawa: House of Commons.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, Lewis, Jeffrey, Lo, James and Carroll, Royce. 2009. OC Roll Call Analysis Software. Technical report. CRAN repository: University California at Los Angeles. Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. and Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Ideology and Congress. 2nd rev. ed. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Reid, E. M. 1967 [1932]. “The Rise of National Parties in Canada.” In Party Politics in Canada, ed. Thorburn, E.G.. Scarborough ON: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Rice, Stuart A. 1925. “The Behavior of Legislative Groups.” Political Science Quarterly 40 (1): 60–72.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Howard and Voeten, Erik. 2004. “Analyzing Roll Calls with Perfect Spatial Voting: France 1946–1958.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (3): 620–32.Google Scholar
Spirling, Arthur and McLean, Iain. 2007. “UK OC OK? Interpreting Optimal Classification Scores for the U.K. House of Commons.” Political Analysis 15 (1): 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, Hugh W. and Brady, David W.. 1976. “The Parliamentary Parties and the Electoral Reforms of 1884–85 in Britain.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 1 (4): 491–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2009. “The Making of Mavericks: Local Loyalties and Party Defection.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (6): 793–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underhill, F. H. 1935. “The Development of National Parties in Canada.” Canadian Historical Review (December).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Jean-Francois Godbout Supplementary Materials

Appendix A

Download Jean-Francois Godbout Supplementary Materials(PDF)
PDF 28.1 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Jean-Francois Godbout Supplementary Materials

Appendix B

Download Jean-Francois Godbout Supplementary Materials(PDF)
PDF 41.2 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Jean-Francois Godbout Supplementary Materials

Appendix C

Download Jean-Francois Godbout Supplementary Materials(PDF)
PDF 545.7 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Jean-Francois Godbout Supplementary Materials

Appendix D

Download Jean-Francois Godbout Supplementary Materials(PDF)
PDF 85.5 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Jean-Francois Godbout Supplementary Materials

Appendix E

Download Jean-Francois Godbout Supplementary Materials(PDF)
PDF 28.8 KB