The NDP earned a reputation decades ago for putting policy ahead of politics.
For instance, they were early champions of equality rights for gay Canadians long before it was fashionable or political advantageous. This early investment in the cause of gay rights paid off in the long-term, helping positively define the party with young Canadians in the early 21st century.
The party's current position on redistribution of seats in the House of Commons is out of character with the "policy before politics" NDP. Rather than put long-term policy ahead of short-term politics, it nakedly puts short-term politics first.
Representation by population is a cornerstone of democracy and the belief that voters are equal, regardless of where they live in the country. It means that your vote is equally important as someone in Toronto or St. John or Vulcan, Alta.
The principal alternative is "representation by jurisdiction," where your state or province is what matters, not the individuals who live in it. Seats in a legislature are awarded according to these units, regardless of the number of people who live there. This is the system used for the United States Senate, as well as our own Senate to an extent.
The redistribution plan would see a closer move to representation by population in the House of Commons, by increasing the total number of members to accommodate swelling populations in some parts of the country.
Right now, Canada has one of the most unequal forms of representation, with a far higher violation of "rep by pop" than in contemporaries like the United States, Australia, Germany or Switzerland.
Because of historic compromises to small provinces and rural Canadians, someone in PEI has at least two and a half more political power than someone in Ontario.
The situation is particularly harsh for new Canadians in the suburbs of Toronto or Vancouver. As the Mowat Institute found, "61 per cent of Canadians are underrepresented in the House of Commons, and Canada's visible minority communities are particularly underrepresented."
The effect of the NDP position is that visible minorities would continue to be muzzled and have only half a voice in the House of Commons.
The situation will get more extreme as time goes on. The rapid population growth in suburbs, fuelled by immigration and the higher birth rates of new Canadians, will leave visible minorities more and more underrepresented.
The reason for the NDP position is simple: Under the proposed plan, Quebec's relative share of seats in the Commons will diminish. Over time, slow growing Quebec will have fewer and fewer seats, compared to fast growing Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.
There is some attempt to use a fig leaf, arguing that the reform would limit representation for native peoples and rural Canadians. But the obvious driver is that the proposed reform will be politically disadvantageous to the region in which the NDP is currently strongest.
The NDP's Quebec strategy is forcing the party to embrace a position that puts it at odds with the belief system of many of its supporters, particularly those in the major cities in English Canada. It also puts them in a very dangerous position for the future.
Obviously, the NDP's principal objective is to solidify their gains in Quebec. Votes there are fickle and there is fear they may turn away from the NDP as quickly as they did the Bloc. But the new electoral battlefield to form a government is not Quebec, but Ontario, and specifically the suburbs of the GTA.
Opposing redistribution may help solidify a strong NDP opposition, but it is also extremely likely this bill will pass under the Conservative majority. When it does, the raft of new seats in the suburbs will be even more the key to victory, and a place the NDP tried to muzzle.
In this case, good policy is actually good long-term politics. The NDP should put aside short-term tactical thinking and embrace redistribution in the House of Commons if they are serious about becoming a government in the next election.