A lot is being made these days about the need for electoral reform in Canada. It was a major theme of the New Democrat Party leadership race in 2012 and is emerging as an important if not dominant issue with the upcoming Liberal leadership contest. The main idea is for all the Federal progressive parties to cooperate in the upcoming general election in 2015 to defeat the Conservative Party of Canada, then to collaborate on legislation that would implement a Proportional Representation or "Fair Voting" system. This would eliminate the "First Past the Post" system we currently have that has enabled the current Harper Government to rule with an iron-fisted majority despite receiving little more than 39% of the popular vote.
In truth, this situation has existed for quite some time. Several previous governments achieved majority status in the House of Commons with less than 50% of the popular vote. But the Harper regime has brought to light the glaring deficiencies of our current system through his use of voter suppression tactics, highly focused campaigns in "winnable" swing ridings and his use of a well financed, highly efficient and ethically deficient, 24/7 election machine. His subsequently questionable majority has been used to erode the democratic process in Canada and to impose legislation, not with the will of the people in mind, but in spite of them. There are absolutely no checks and balances to his political agenda within our current Parliament. He has effectively neutered the majority of our elected officials, including members of his own party.
While Proportional Representation might not completely eliminate the highly partisan and corrosive state of affairs in Ottawa as previously discussed here, it is believed that it will be a fairer representation of the "will of the people" and will ultimately eliminate false majority governments such as Stephen Harper's.
Enter Fair Vote Canada. They are the leading proponents of Proportional Representation in Canada. They are a highly credible and highly motivated organization with such high-profile backers as Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party of Canada and Stephan Dion, the former leader of the Liberal Party. Fair Vote works hard to dispel a lot of the myths and anxiety regarding PR systems of voting by observing that over 80 countries in the world currently embrace one form of Proportional Representation or another. They advocate for implementation of one of the three leading systems of PR in use in the world today. They are: List Systems, Mixed Member Proportional Systems and Single Transferable Vote Systems.
Canada, despite the Harper regime, remains a socially liberal country, but it is also small-c conservative in many ways, especially in the area of change. While none of the three proposed systems are exactly rocket science, they involve change. They involve lists, lists of lists, quotas and -"gasp"!- casting TWO votes at a time. Now these are all very concrete and workable systems but they require Canadians to take a giant step outside their comfort zone. Our First Past The Post system is nothing if not simple. It requires very little of the voter except the effort it takes to check off a name on a ballot and stuff it into a well guarded box. PR systems seem to actually require some thought, some decision making and could well take longer than the 30 seconds currently required to cast a ballot. Even if we don't completely understand our own politics, the act of casting a ballot is relatively simple.
This is where "Majority Representation" comes in. It requires no change what so ever from the voter's perspective. The ballots look the same as they do now and voters opt for the person or party of their choice, just as they currently do. But the big change lays in the outcome of the vote. Instead of just sending the candidate with the most votes to Ottawa, a local riding must be represented by 51% or better of the popular vote. This means that if the top vote-getter does not have 51% (a clear majority) of the popular vote in their particular riding, then the candidate with the second most votes also gets a seat in Parliament. And if the top two candidates don't add up to better than half the popular vote then a third candidate also goes to Ottawa. The point being that each and every riding must be represented by a bare minimum of 51% of the voters. This can mean that a particular riding can be represented by two or more parties. Stephan Dion proposed a similar system and argued that having more than one representative in each constituency would make for better service as it would create competition for the best representation, meaning that constituents might actually carry more clout with a particular MP than the party whip as is currently the case.
The Majority Representation system requires no major changes to our current way of electing candidates but it does involve a drastic physical renovation in the House of Commons. After doing some number crunching based on the outcomes from Election 41 in May of 2011, I arrived at a total of 473 seats in the House. It may well make things a little crowded physically. But here is the up-shot. Based on Table Two below, the total number of MPs for each party is MUCH closer to the actual popular vote. The Conservatives for example, who had just 39.6% of the popular vote in 2011 would have 43.97% of the seats in the House of Commons under the Majority System. Well below the 53.9% of seats they have now. The NDP, with 30.6% of the popular vote in 2011 would have 31.08% of the seats in the House and would still be the Official Opposition. The Liberals, who garnered 18.9% of the popular vote in 2011 would have 17.12% of the seats. It should be noted that none of the 308 riding would have sent more than two representatives to Ottawa. 143 ridings would have elected one candidate with a clear majority while the other 165 would have selected two MPs in order to get their 51% representation or better. Curiously enough, the ratio of representatives per region were remarkably similar to what they are now, meaning that - for example - PEI didn't end up with more MPs than Quebec. The proportion of representatives remained fairly consistent.
So what does this kind of Proportional System mean for Canada? Well it might mean an end to majority governments altogether. This does not necessarily mean an end to strong effective governments. But it could well usher in an era where governments try harder to work with all parties in an effort to stave off elections every few years. In fact, if the notion of Majority Representation were taken a step farther and transferred from the riding level into the House of Commons, meaning the government must represent 51% of the House or better, much like the Liberal/NDP coalition in Ontario in the 80s, we could certainly see our Parliamentary system representing a wider majority of Canadian interests. Formal coalition agreements could be written that might see cabinets contain ministers from more than one party. Agendas from both sides of the isle could be entertained and a natural system of checks and balances would evolve. No more "rule by decree". In fact, when presented with a minority government scenario, the Governor General may insist on a coalition that represents 51% of the House or better as opposed to simply handing the reigns of power to which ever party has the most seats, which, it should be pointed out, is a mere matter of convention, not constitutionality. In this way, a more stable government would exist rather than the ad hoc, issue by issue minorities we currently see who's existence hang in the balance at every vote in the House.
Of course, all this would mean that Canadians would have to get past the Harper myth regarding coalition governments being undemocratic. This was a falsehood inflicted upon the citizens of Canada in 2008 in his effort to cling to power. Unfortunately, the behaviour of the opposition parties in response to Harper's fear-mongering did little to dispel the myth. Canadians need to ask them selves, which is more democratic, a government that in reality, reflects a minority of it's citizens or one that reflects a true majority?
So while Majority Representation does mean a change in the way our governments are formed, it would mean our Parliament would more closely reflect the popular vote and the will of the people (though admittedly, not as reflective of the popular vote as any of the three systems advocated by Fair Vote Canada). But it would not change how people vote. It would still mean they vote for the person or party of their choosing. One person, one vote. And it would mean that the majority of votes count in local ridings, not just those for the candidate with the largest total, meaning a greater proportion of the population would see their votes count. It is a compromise between our current First Past the Post system and those proposed by Fair Vote Canada. One that Canadians could easily get their heads around and embrace.
Please see the tables below for a region by region break down of how Parliament might actually look today if a Majority Representation System were in effect in May of 2011.
In truth, this situation has existed for quite some time. Several previous governments achieved majority status in the House of Commons with less than 50% of the popular vote. But the Harper regime has brought to light the glaring deficiencies of our current system through his use of voter suppression tactics, highly focused campaigns in "winnable" swing ridings and his use of a well financed, highly efficient and ethically deficient, 24/7 election machine. His subsequently questionable majority has been used to erode the democratic process in Canada and to impose legislation, not with the will of the people in mind, but in spite of them. There are absolutely no checks and balances to his political agenda within our current Parliament. He has effectively neutered the majority of our elected officials, including members of his own party.
While Proportional Representation might not completely eliminate the highly partisan and corrosive state of affairs in Ottawa as previously discussed here, it is believed that it will be a fairer representation of the "will of the people" and will ultimately eliminate false majority governments such as Stephen Harper's.
Enter Fair Vote Canada. They are the leading proponents of Proportional Representation in Canada. They are a highly credible and highly motivated organization with such high-profile backers as Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party of Canada and Stephan Dion, the former leader of the Liberal Party. Fair Vote works hard to dispel a lot of the myths and anxiety regarding PR systems of voting by observing that over 80 countries in the world currently embrace one form of Proportional Representation or another. They advocate for implementation of one of the three leading systems of PR in use in the world today. They are: List Systems, Mixed Member Proportional Systems and Single Transferable Vote Systems.
Canada, despite the Harper regime, remains a socially liberal country, but it is also small-c conservative in many ways, especially in the area of change. While none of the three proposed systems are exactly rocket science, they involve change. They involve lists, lists of lists, quotas and -"gasp"!- casting TWO votes at a time. Now these are all very concrete and workable systems but they require Canadians to take a giant step outside their comfort zone. Our First Past The Post system is nothing if not simple. It requires very little of the voter except the effort it takes to check off a name on a ballot and stuff it into a well guarded box. PR systems seem to actually require some thought, some decision making and could well take longer than the 30 seconds currently required to cast a ballot. Even if we don't completely understand our own politics, the act of casting a ballot is relatively simple.
This is where "Majority Representation" comes in. It requires no change what so ever from the voter's perspective. The ballots look the same as they do now and voters opt for the person or party of their choice, just as they currently do. But the big change lays in the outcome of the vote. Instead of just sending the candidate with the most votes to Ottawa, a local riding must be represented by 51% or better of the popular vote. This means that if the top vote-getter does not have 51% (a clear majority) of the popular vote in their particular riding, then the candidate with the second most votes also gets a seat in Parliament. And if the top two candidates don't add up to better than half the popular vote then a third candidate also goes to Ottawa. The point being that each and every riding must be represented by a bare minimum of 51% of the voters. This can mean that a particular riding can be represented by two or more parties. Stephan Dion proposed a similar system and argued that having more than one representative in each constituency would make for better service as it would create competition for the best representation, meaning that constituents might actually carry more clout with a particular MP than the party whip as is currently the case.
The House of Commons might need a face lift. The Price of Democracy? |
So what does this kind of Proportional System mean for Canada? Well it might mean an end to majority governments altogether. This does not necessarily mean an end to strong effective governments. But it could well usher in an era where governments try harder to work with all parties in an effort to stave off elections every few years. In fact, if the notion of Majority Representation were taken a step farther and transferred from the riding level into the House of Commons, meaning the government must represent 51% of the House or better, much like the Liberal/NDP coalition in Ontario in the 80s, we could certainly see our Parliamentary system representing a wider majority of Canadian interests. Formal coalition agreements could be written that might see cabinets contain ministers from more than one party. Agendas from both sides of the isle could be entertained and a natural system of checks and balances would evolve. No more "rule by decree". In fact, when presented with a minority government scenario, the Governor General may insist on a coalition that represents 51% of the House or better as opposed to simply handing the reigns of power to which ever party has the most seats, which, it should be pointed out, is a mere matter of convention, not constitutionality. In this way, a more stable government would exist rather than the ad hoc, issue by issue minorities we currently see who's existence hang in the balance at every vote in the House.
Most democratic counties embrace coalition governments. Why not Canada? |
So while Majority Representation does mean a change in the way our governments are formed, it would mean our Parliament would more closely reflect the popular vote and the will of the people (though admittedly, not as reflective of the popular vote as any of the three systems advocated by Fair Vote Canada). But it would not change how people vote. It would still mean they vote for the person or party of their choosing. One person, one vote. And it would mean that the majority of votes count in local ridings, not just those for the candidate with the largest total, meaning a greater proportion of the population would see their votes count. It is a compromise between our current First Past the Post system and those proposed by Fair Vote Canada. One that Canadians could easily get their heads around and embrace.
Please see the tables below for a region by region break down of how Parliament might actually look today if a Majority Representation System were in effect in May of 2011.
Table
One: Region by Region Break Down of Number of Seats
Based on Majority Representation System (based on voting in Election
41, May 2011).
Maritimes
|
Quebec
|
Ontario
|
Manitoba
|
Sask
|
Alberta
|
B.C.
|
Territories
|
Total
|
|
Liberal
|
18
|
15
|
40
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
5
|
1
|
81
|
CPC
|
22
|
13
|
89
|
11
|
14
|
27
|
29
|
3
|
208
|
NDP
|
9
|
72
|
39
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
17
|
1
|
147
|
Ind
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
Green
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
Bloc
|
0
|
34
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
34
|
Totals
|
49
|
135
|
168
|
16
|
18
|
30
|
52
|
5
|
473
|
Table
Two: Comparison of Majority Representation Seats to current
Seats ( based on voting in Election 41, May 2011).
Total
Seats under Majority Representation
|
%
of Seats under Majority Representation
|
Existing
Number of Seats (1)
|
%
of Popular Vote in 2011 (1)
|
|
Liberals
|
81
|
17.12%
|
34 (11.04%)
|
18.90%
|
Conservatives
|
208
|
43.97%
|
166 (53.89%
|
39.60%
|
NDP
|
147
|
31.08%
|
103 (33.44%)
|
30.60%
|
Independent
|
2
|
0.42%
|
0 (0.00%)
|
0.40%
|
Green
|
1
|
0.21%
|
1 (00.32%)
|
3.90%
|
Bloc
|
34
|
7.19%
|
4 (0.1.29%)
|
6.00%
|
Totals
|
473
|
99.99%
|
308
|
99.40%
|
Notes:
- Number of seats required for a majority government under Majority Representation: 237 (this number would vary depending on election results)
- Number of seats currently required for a majority government: 155 (this number does not take into account newly adjusted ridings)
- All Calculations are based on figures taken from CityNews.ca, Riding by Riding results of Election 41 which can be found at: http://www.citynews.ca/2011/05/02/riding-by-riding-federal-election-results/
- (1) Existing seat totals and % of popular vote based on numbers taken from: Wikipedia, Canadian Federal Election 2011, Results by Provinces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011
Interesting proposal....one worth pursuing. The rationale for it appeals to me. How does the breakdown of seats compare with the other electoral reform proposals?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is a simpler way of replacing FPTP with a new Proportional Representation system based on existing single member constituencies. Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR Voting) is a PR voting system that requires no changes to constituency size or boundaries, or the number of MPs.
ReplyDeleteCompared with First past the post, DPR Voting makes Parliament more ‘party proportional’ in its voting and gives MPs more independence from their parties, but also makes them more accountable to their constituents.
It has the potential to reshape the relationship between the different political parties, between MPs and their parties, and their constituents.
Unlike some PR systems it would not result in a multiplicity of small parties. Introducing the new system would require very little change either for voters or administrators, and thus the cost and disruption of the change would be low.
DPR Voting is a system that should be considered for use in Canada.