CHAPTER 9
The 20% no block vote
“Comme dans toutes les consultations au Québec, le facteur linguistique est le facteur déterminant pour expliquer les comportements électoraux.”[89]
-- Pierre Drouilly
In the last chapter you outlined which
characteristics any solution to the plight of Quebec Anglophones would have to
incorporate and avoid. Now tell us what the solution is.
The solution is the Two Question Referendum.
The Two Question Referendum is a political strategy that I have developed for
the Parti Québécois to adopt. The goal of the Two Question Referendum is the
restoration and guarantee of full individual and minority rights for the
non-Francophone community of Quebec.
That's a mouthful. How can you possibly propose a formula that, on the one
hand, will be adopted by the PQ and, on the other, the Anglophones will
participate in? At first glance it would seem that both parties would reject
such an approach.
The Parti Québécois will become the government again. When they do, it will be
in their interest to adopt the Two Question Referendum format because it will
ensure a "yes" result in a sovereignty referendum. In fact, I contend that not
only will it be the only way in which a "yes" majority vote can be achieved, but
that subsequent to that win it will be the only way in which independence will
come to pass. Achieving a “yes“ majority in a referendum and actually getting an
independent Quebec are two very different things. The Two Question Referendum
will achieve both.
The Two Question Referendum is in the interest of the non-Francophone community
because it will provide their full individual and minority rights, something
that they do not currently enjoy living in a Quebec within Canada.
How exactly does this formula work?
In the Introduction, I mentioned the principle of exchange.
The Two Question Referendum will enable the non-Francophone community to obtain
full civil rights status within their own newly created geo-political territory
in exchange for something the PQ nationalists desperately need from the non-Francophones:
neutralization of the non-Francophone 20% no block vote.
The 20% no block vote is an electoral phenomenon that has already demonstrated
its facility to make or break independence referendums.
A proposed geo-political territory -- what I call Quebec West -- will be created
as a province within the newly independent country of Quebec at the same
time that independence occurs.
Tell us more about the 20% no block vote
The 20% no block vote is the proven propensity on the part of the
non-Francophone community of Quebec to vote "no" en masse in sovereignty
referendums. There have been two sovereignty referendums -- 1980 and 1995 -- in
which to harvest the evidence. I leave it to the demographers to present their
findings.
In the 1980 Sovereignty-Association referendum, the "yes" side was defeated by a
59.5% to 40.5% vote, a seemingly clear-cut margin of victory.
However, when the language-demographic voting patterns were examined, a most
revealing factor was uncovered: an almost unanimous “no” vote by Quebec’s
Anglophones.
Indeed, demographic expert Pierre Drouilly found that only 1% of Anglophones and
about 4% of non-Francophones voted "yes" in the 1980 referendum.[90]
That 99% of an identifiable demographic group votes in unison is an incredible
statistic. Such unanimity in voting is usually only found in totalitarian
countries in which elections are rigged in order to demonstrate a despot’s huge
popularity to the international press.
Except in this case the numbers are real and legitimate. Can there be any
greater evidence to support the existence of the “absolute patriot” and “Canada
at all costs” forces?
How about the 1995 referendum?
The overall referendum results in 1995: 50.58% "no" to 49.42% "yes"
Although the results were quite different from 1980 -- within a whisker of a
“yes“ victory -- they weren’t much different from the 1980 language-demographic
voting patterns when considering the non-Francophones. Again, a near unanimous
“no.”[91]
The 20% no block vote is most evident when the voting patterns of D’Arcy McGee,
a riding in the predominantly Anglophone west end of Montreal, are examined.
What happened in D’Arcy McGee?
In the 1980 referendum, out of 162 polling subdivisions with an average of 234
voters per subdivision, 12 subdivisions recorded zero votes for the “yes“ option
and 19 recorded only one “yes” vote. Over 95% of the entire riding voted “no”.[92]
In the 1995 referendum, out of 167 polling subdivisions with an average of 231
voters per subdivision, 16 subdivisions recorded zero votes for the “yes” side
and 30 recorded only one “yes” vote. Over 96% voted “no”.[93]
Shutouts are almost unheard of in democracies.
On referendum night in 1995, Jacques Parizeau stated that the “yes” side lost
due to “money and the ethnic vote”.
Mr. Parizeau was half right. I can’t speak to the money part of that statement;
perhaps he was referring to questionable expenditures by the federal government
during the campaign. But as far as the “ethnic vote” half, he was absolutely
right.
Jacques Parizeau got a bad rap. He was pilloried for stating the obvious when he
labeled certain groups as “ethnics". Under any other circumstance in any other
jurisdiction in Canada or the United States such observations don’t raise an
eyebrow.
It has been well established over many decades of studying voting patterns that
African-Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic in the United States.[94]
Such observations are made without even a hint of outrage; they are, simply,
demonstrable demographic facts.
Eighty percent of Quebec’s population is francophone. Relative to that
overwhelming majority it is part of the lexicon to refer to anyone who is
non-Francophone as “ethnic”. That’s how it works everywhere else: the majority
is the reference point and every other group cedes to the “ethnic” label. If
you’re Italian or Rumanian in waspish Iowa or Wyoming, you’re “ethnic”; if
you’re from Anglo-Saxon stock you’re not. I find it the height of hypocrisy when
Canadian political observers who never said “boo!” regarding actual segregation
of rights under Canada’s and Quebec’s language of education laws suddenly got
all self-righteous when Jacques Parizeau makes an honest and legitimate
observation about different voting patterns between linguistic groups.
Clearly, the “ethnics” -- the non-Francophone -- voted “no” en masse. And it
most certainly was their vote that tipped the scales. Parizeau had every right
morally, ethically or otherwise to observe this fact and comment upon it. For
someone leading the forces to obtain a “no” majority he would have been remiss
in his duties not to be aware of how the voting patterns of various groups
manifested themselves in the referendum.
The day after, Parizeau expounded upon his “money and ethnic vote” comment: “it
is not healthy in a society such as ours that groups, particularly when they
come from specific cultural communities, vote 95% in the same direction.”[95]
Demographer Pierre Drouilly observed: “If Quebec’s Anglophones and allophones
had voted ‘yes’ in the same percentages as Quebec’s native population, the “yes”
side would have won the referendum with about 52% of the vote.”[96]
I fail to see how Parizeau misspoke in any way. Was it acceptable for Pierre
Drouilly to say what he said because he is a demographer but not okay for
Parizeau because he isn’t? How silly.
How did Francophones as a group vote in ’80 and ’95?
In 1980, about 52% of Francophones voted “yes” and about 48% “no”.[97]
In 1995, about 60% of Francophones voted “yes” and about 40% “no”.[98]
How does the propensity on the part of non-Francophones to massively vote
"no" in sovereignty referendums tie in with creating a Quebec West province and
where would this province be located?
Let's take a look at where the non-Francophones of Quebec live.
Over 75% of all the non-Francophones of Quebec live within a radius of 25 miles
of the Island of Montreal.[99]
Let’s also examine the percentage of Quebec's population that is
non-Francophone.
Approximately 18.5% of Quebec's population was non-Francophone at the time of
the 1980 referendum.[100] In 1995,
non-Francophone were 17.7% (8.9% Anglophone and 8.8% allophone ).[101]
According to the latest census in 2006, non-Francophones were 19.9% (7.8%
Anglophone and 12.1% allophone).[102]
For the purposes of the calculations in this book, I assume that 20% of the
total vote in the next sovereignty referendum will be cast by non-Francophones.
I also believe that linguistic voting patterns will hold fast from the previous
two referendums (which, one should note, were separated by 15 years) and that
over 95% will be "no" votes. That works out to be about 20% of the total vote
that is virtually guaranteed to be “no”.
This is the deficit the “yes” forces have to contend with before they even begin
a sovereignty referendum campaign.
And these "no” votes will be concentrated in a specific geographic area?
Precisely…and the value of this 20% no block vote can, I contend, be used as a
bargaining chip to get what the non-Francophone community wants.
How?
By neutralization of that block vote.
What if some means had existed in 1995 in which a substantial portion of the 20%
no block vote could have neutralized? What would the referendum results have
been?
As we’ve seen, non-Francophones are concentrated in the south-western corner of
Quebec, mostly in the Montreal metropolitan area. By isolating most of Quebec’s
non-Francophone into a separate geographic territory -- what I call "Quebec
West" --and the rest of Quebec into "Quebec Proper", a “trade-off” can be
effected.
Quebec West comprises over 75% of Quebec’s non-Francophone.[103]
Assuming that the 60% francophone vote for independence experienced in 1995
carries over to the next referendum, Figure 1: Hypothetical vote results:
Quebec West non-Francophones voting “yes” at various percentages tells us
how the non-Francophone in Quebec West would have to vote in order to neutralize
or minimize their no block vote.
Figure 1: Hypothetical vote results: Quebec West non-Francophones voting
“yes” at various percentages
It is quite obvious from Figure 1 that
the neutralization of the 20% no block vote can prove quite valuable to the
separatists because it will, effectively, ensure a “yes” win.
Neutralization of the block vote can be used as leverage to obtain something
that the nationalists have that the non-Francophones want.
The return of the non-Francophones' full individual and minority rights!
You catch on quickly!
I am proposing nothing less than a trade-off: the neutralization of the 20% no
block vote in exchange for full individual and minority rights for the non-Francophones.
So, if I understand you correctly, the non-Francophones of Quebec West will
get a province of their own within an independent Quebec, along with full
individual and minority rights, in exchange for the neutralization of their "no"
vote on sovereignty. Is that right?
Yes.
How exactly would that ever happen? How can the non-Francophones possibly be
convinced to vote "yes" for Quebec independence? And this better be good because
you are really stretching the boundaries of rationality, my friend!
It will be achieved through the format of the Two Question Referendum.
---