Searching for simple, fair Canadian electoral reform
It’s time for a Canadian representative parliamentary system. Inclusive, fair, and simple enough to satisfy disparate sensibilities and majority rules.
By Wayne Pajunen Thursday Nov. 26, 2015
Democratic Canadians are fond of the practice
“majority rules”. The simplicity of this aphorism is practiced and quoted from
our children’s playgrounds to our corporate boardrooms.
Sir Isaac Newton recognized the value of simplicity: Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and
not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.
Since 1867 majority rule is how we had hoped our
electoral system would function. This electoral model has not withstood the
modern day test of time though. When electing Members of Parliament (MPs) and
three or more parties garner votes cast the gold standard of majority rules is
too often undermined. Elected commonly receive as low as 30% support as we’ve
settled for first past the post (FPTP) victors, as though our communal
destiny should equate to thoroughbreds galloping.
FPTP equating to “minority rules” is not considered
fair play by many Canadians and may have run its final race. Justin Trudeau who
recently won a majority government with 39.5 percent of the vote has committed
to this victory as being the last election to acquiesce to the first past the
post model.
Voters are weary of MPs winning seats and majority
federal governments with tallies far short of a majority. Many Canadians
estranged by FPTP, knowing their candidate has no chance to represent them
parliament, conclude; “Why should I even vote?” This common belief is anathema
to our democratic values. Reflecting this sense of impotency Elections Ontario reported a
record 31,399 voters took the time to go to the
polls only to register a protest non-vote!
Contriving a system whereby majority rules among three
or more contesting party candidates is a conundrum democracies world over have
struggled and experimented with, while devising diverse alternatives to FPTP.
The USA fortuitously, or otherwise, swept aside
multiple party logistics by requiring exorbitant sums of money to contest
national campaigns. This model effectively sets the stakes at the table too
high for parties, other than the established Republicans and Democrats, to
fairly compete. This
model doesn’t pass muster in Canada where we have agreed to strict spending
limits to preserve fiscal electoral fairness among classes and parties,
preventing corporations and the wealthy from perceived or real “buying” of
elections and candidates.
Many have touted a
proportional representation (PR) model whereby a party gains legislative
representation equal to the percentage of votes garnered. A party gaining under
40 percent of the vote today and a majority government, as happened in 1993 and
2015, would receive an equal percentage of the seats in a minority parliament.
Two drawbacks to this
method are significant. Foremost, voters are prohibited from electing a
candidate to directly represent their individual and community interests.
Accordingly these MPs have no direct obligation to local constituent concerns.
Secondly PR often
leads to political
fragmentation whereby there are too many cooks in the kitchen and “functioning”
coalitions are propped up by backroom horse-trading and policy compromises. The
upside, and at the same time downside, is socially desired parties would attain
representation in parliament proportional to their votes while ornery parties,
such as a few in Europe, gain a voice on the national stage dragging discourse
down to their insensitivity contrary to Canada’s greatest virtue, our
sensitivities of inclusiveness.
A third oft mentioned
option is mixed-member proportional
(MMP) representation which requires voters mark their ballot twice to endorse a
preferred local candidate and a political party. Ontario’s referendum found MMP
wanting and rejected it in 2007.
Israel’s PR and Germany’s MMP systems have had to
be modified, some say gerrymandered, several times since their
inception, hardly simple or fair.
British Columbia has seen wide support for
electoral reform yet has twice voted down the proposed BC-STV (single
transferable vote – STV, a.k.a. instant-runoff voting (IRV)) system. Rumours are Ottawa is considering this model, but as BC
demonstrated, adopting the STV model is easier said than done. STV does have
its merits. Voters mark their ballots with their first second and third preference.
If tabulations produce no candidate garnering more than 50 percent of the vote
the second choice is added to the equation and so on until a majority victor
emerges. One obvious shortcoming occurs when voters believe the election is
close and he/she is motivated to undemocratically mark the “second best
candidate” last on the ranked ballot to improve their preferred candidates
fortune in a possible run-off.
Reforming the
first-past-the-post system is a laudable however daunting undertaking. Not so long
ago three provinces moved on replacing the FPTP system and via referendums
voters vetoed the proposed alternatives to their familiar voting construct in
Prince Edward Island (2005), Ontario (2007) and British Columbia (2009).
In the name of simplicity, fair and direct
representation we could consider maintaining our current system with one
modification and one addition.
The modification: Once the vote is completed and the
leading vote getter fails to receive more than 50% of the vote, the process could
be modified to accommodate a run-off vote among the top two vote getters
conducted 2 to 7 days after. The run-off vote could be conducted by computer or
in person at the same voting station location as they did on Election Day. To
facilitate e-voting, voters are given a Second Round Voters ID (SRV-ID)
card along with their Election Day ballot. Voters keep the SRV-ID or “run-off
voter card ID” should a second round be necessary as a credential to vote in
person or with a secure registration number to vote on-line in the second
round.
The
second round of voting modification would address the desire for majority rule,
and provide hassle free participation in the run-offs, enabling voter turnout
to stay as close as possible to the Election Day participation rate. If the likes of Pay-pal can provide secure
on-line transactions, surely Canada can provide a secure e-voting process.
In fact, it may be that today’s technology could
facilitate implementing the balloting process on-line, another consideration.
This modification does not address the needs of the
citizens who voted for a party that did not win representation in the House of
Commons, as consequence of our current FPTP system or the considered STV
method. The disenfranchised would remain so under all options being considered
save for the chaotic PR system.
Newly elected Prime Minister Trudeau apparently
believes, as did his father, that a benevolent government enshrines legal
rights, such as our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to appease and protect the
existence and development of the minority, and so should our electoral system.
The addition: The unrepresented disenfranchised
minority of Canadian’s deserve voice in parliament. The addition to our
electoral system would consist of adding 10 seats to the House of Commons
structuring a forum for proportional representation for parties that fail the
FPTP test. It might work like this; if the Green Party received 50 percent of
the vote among parties bereft of representation they would be allotted 5 of the
10 available seats and so on for the other unrepresented parties. The party
members to occupy these seats would derive from a prioritised list of 10
candidates announced before the election so their supporters would know whom
they would most likely be voting for should their preferred candidate’s party
accumulate sufficient votes to qualify for representation. This formula would
provide a deserved voice in Parliament for the significant number of Canadians
currently muted by FPTP and would not have undue sway on the majority elected
balance of power within a stable government structure.
This formula, which we may label the Canadian
Representative Parliamentary System (CRPS), would serve Canadian’s well, as
we are now, individually and among our communities yet be more inclusive than
our current model.
Although CRPS won’t uphold the democratic ideal of
every vote being equal Canadian’s don’t have that now. Electoral districts do
not have equal numbers of eligible voters. Some northern ridings elect MP with less
than 35,000 constituents, whereas several metropolitan cater to over 120,000
constituents. Canadian’s in northern ridings have 3 to 4 times more
proportional representation per vote than many urban constituents.
What CPRS will do is give disenfranchised Canadian
voters and their parties an effective voice in the House of Commons.
CRPS provides for familiarity and stable governments
able to lead Canada and make difficult the decisions of governing while
accommodating Canada’s disenfranchised.
As uncomplicated as CRPS is, it will require thorough
study, negotiation and procedural rules from the ballot box to question
period in the House of Commons. As a classic Canadian compromise, CRPS’s
simplicity and inclusiveness may even pass a surely obligatory referendum where
other considered options have recently failed. A referendum on CRPS would
demonstrate respect of the populace, continuity of Canadian values and beliefs
and welcome a principled inclusion
of the disenfranchised.
A Canadian
Representative Parliamentary System may
be inclusive, fair and simple enough to satisfy disparate sensibilities and majority
rules, and it be another step forward along the path of our great
country’s evolution.
As another of mankind’s greatest thinkers Leonardo da Vinci
advised: Simplicity is the ultimate
sophistication.
Wayne Pajunen
Wayne is a political affairs columnist, consultant and former employee of Canada’s House of Commons and the Liberal Party of Canada. His work also appears in The Hill Times, The News Lens, Taipei Times and AMCHAM Business Topics magazine.
