Do Canadians Want Their Electoral System Reformed?
Our parliamentary system is constituted in such a way that the government must maintain a majority of support in the house to pass legislation. This is not a problem when one political party wins a majority of the seats in the house, i.e. the Chretien Era. In this capacity, the government can pass all the legislation it wants with minimal or no responsibility to the opposition parties in the house. In the case of minority parliaments, of which we have seen for most of the past decade now, the government needs the support of at least one other party. Should it not obtain this support, the government must call an election. So far, the Harper government has managed to be defeated in the house without losing the confidence to govern the country. Sound confusing? Actually, the government can only be forced to call an election if it is defeated in a motion of confidence. This can simply be a motion that states that the members of the house have lost confidence in the government, or it can come with the defeat of monetary bills, tax bills, or budget implementation bills.
Why all this background info? Because the way our parliamentary system is set up allows for too much partisanship and political wrangling. A government can be elected, as the most recent one was, with less than 40% of popular support across the country. While it is true that this government will need to maintain confidence and wheel and deal if it wants to stay alive, in what universe does it make sense that a group of people with less than 50% of public support have the right to form our government and lead our nation? They haven’t passed the true test, which should be 50% plus 1. In other democracies, like in Australia and Germany, parties have to either earn a majority or form coalitions to earn the 50% plus 1. It’s Canada’s anachronistic first past the post system that has made our politics uninteresting and has people ignoring the political process at large. Canadians across the country feel unrepresented and therefore ignored. The 2008 federal election had a voter turnout of 59.1%. At this rate, the governments of this country will be chosen by less than 50% of the voting population. Does this not scare anyone?
Electoral reform is the only true way to re-engage the public. If they feel like their vote will matter, then they will turn their attention to what happens in Ottawa. I don’t accept the excuse that a friend of mine put forward: “Ottawa is on the other side of the country (from B.C.) and what happens there doesn’t affect me.” This disengagement has become endemic, especially among those of my age group (I’m 25). I remember when the Conservatives were in favor of electoral reform, but now that they have seen how they benefit from this disproportionate system, they have abandoned their once honest platform. I think a call for a royal commission on electoral reform is in need. I’ve had some people laugh at that suggestion, saying that twice now British Columbians have voted against electoral reform in their province. However, I would submit that the public was completely uninformed and the organization committee of the electoral reform campaign was inadequate. Be that as it may, a commission to discover the desire among Canadians to pursue electoral reform is necessary and vastly overdue. Australia did it in 1985 for goodness sake, and it resulted in a wholesale change in the political landscape of the country. Canada can do better for its citizens.
Related posts:
- Is it True That Canadians are Not Ready to Elect a Woman? In a recent CBC online article Audrey McLaughlin, former leader...
- Brian Mulroney & Jean Chretien: An Epic Battle Between Two Political Heavyweights That Canadians Never Got To See Former Prime Ministers Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien share many...
- The Near Completion of the 2nd Session of the 40th Parliament of Canada T...
- Canada’s Lowest Voter Turnout Rate in History The tragedy that occurred on Election Day still bugs me...
- Stephen Harper’s Prorogation & Canada’s Parliamentary Failure A few months ago I wrote a paper for a...
Tags: canadian parliament, canadian politics, Electoral Reform, Proportional Representation, Voting
Loading ...
December 12th, 2009 at 1:46 am
[...] here to read the rest: Do Canadians Want Their Electoral System Reformed? | Political … Share and [...]
December 12th, 2009 at 10:25 am
[...] Do Canadians Want Their Electoral System Reformed? | Political … [...]
December 12th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Yes, yes, and yes.
We need reform in several areas. First is the candidate voting mechanism. We need Range Voting or possibly Condorcet (though more complex). Plurality voting is horrible. It promotes amalgamation of parties to get two sets of votes in a single vote. Vote splitting is a problem. You can have many nearly identical candidates with similar policies that the vast majority of the population supports but are divided up amongst the many. A single fringe candidate can easily win with a small percentage of votes.
Range voting (rate each candidate on a scale, e.g., -5 to +5) is demonstrably the most robust to corruption, selects the candidate most preferred by the population, and is easy and familiar to anyone who has done surveys or magazine tests. The candidate with the highest overall score wins the seat and voters can be honest about how they feel about each candidate and their policies. There is no pressure for strategic voting.
The second reform is at the structural level. We need proportional representation to ensure that the range of views of the voting public are recognized. If Range Voting is employed, proportionality takes on a slightly different meaning but is easily calculated by the voting score. A better approach is to have two votes on the ballot, one using range voting for the Candidate and one for the party who should form the government. Then the ratio of representatives, and who should hold power, is directly measurable.
The third reform is the formation of effective government, i.e., the majority grouping as described in this article. Indeed, the requirement for forming a majority only derives from the way in which Parliament votes on legislation, i.e., for or against passing a legislation. While a Range Voting approach could be employed it is not necessary because there are only two choices. (Plurality voting doesn’t work well for more than two.) It would also be ineffective as party lines would either give maximum or minimum range values and end up with effectively the same process.
Instead, a majority of representatives forming a coalition is necessary. This is good for Canadians because coalitions tend to support overlapping policies, ones that the majority of Canadians supported through their voting, while weeding out the fringe ones specific to one of the parties.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:48 am
[...] Do Canadians Want Their Electoral System Reformed? | Political … [...]
December 15th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
The old canard of changing the electoral process for fairness to everyone. Why do we only hear this when the liberal left side of the voting equation is out of power and not cooperating together. Oh we must change the system because if the conservatives get a majority it will be all over for Canada. Like a tyranny or dictatorship like Chavez or…Oh sorry you probably admire that guy. Good for Venezuala or Iran but not us wee ones in Canada. Settle down, the present system is not perfect but it appears to be the best possible as far as orderly gov´t, simplicity to understand for a voter with little time or inclination. Pizza parliaments would be a confusing chaotic unreliable vehicle for creating meaningful legislation.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
RE: Susaan: You’re statement that the call for electoral reform is only roused by disenchanted leftists is wholly inaccurate. The Reform Party, the Green Party (The Harris years), The Progressive Conservatives and the NDP have all, at one time in their respective lives, have called for reforming our electoral process. In fact, our current Prime Minister was very much in favor of electoral reform because, at one time at least, he was in favor of more free votes for MPs in the House of Commons. Also, you will see that my call for electoral reform is not for partisan purposes, but rather for the re-engagement of the voting public. I feel that if the public knows it will be better represented by a more proportional system, then they will extend their vote. This will only happen when they feel their vote matters, and in a first past the post system, in our federation, when pockets of support mean more then the overall support from voters, it doesn’t.
December 17th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Well I agree with Susaan (odd double ‘a’ or otherwise). I also must add that what you are proposing is absurd. It appears as though you think that the Parliament simply has the ability to pass legislation and be done with it – well that is not true. A Constitutional Ammendment is a near political impossibility. First you would need the support of 7 of the 10 provences and that must also include a total of 66% of Canada’s population (if my memory serves me correctly). So you are proposing that Ontario and Quebec would have to agree on this – sure in the face of what concessions? Lets say that you get this far and you get to the stage where you legally can hold a referendum. Then the courts have to uphold the wording of the ballot issued (which by the way they never would have in the last attempt for Quebec to separate) and of course this would be decided ultimately by the supreme court which means again at least three judges from Quebec. Of course such an important case would involve the sitting of all nine justices and you would have to have the support of 5. Then, since the court is not to bind itself there is always the possibility once one of those old stooges dies that an issue on similar grounds finds its way to the SCC and the Court overturns its own ruling and declares the system that you are proposing unconstitutional. So yeah, if you can jump through all those hurdles then yeah maybe one day it could happen. Whether it could happen before our sun supernovas is a whole other question. This is Canada friend, and if you have been alive long enough to wonder why nothing significant changes in this country then you will know it is because, for the most part, nothing really does. There is a big difference between speculating with distant and irrelevant Poli-Sci professors about the “ideal Canada” and dealing with the nuts-and-bolts stupidity of our current system.
December 17th, 2009 at 3:54 am
RE Travis: Susaan was inferring, at least at the beginning of her very brief post, that I was a Chavez loving leftist who spends my time sneering at the combined right in Canada for keeping me “out of power.” I simply was disagreeing with that statement, and any inference that electoral reform was only of the left. Harper has, several times in the past, along with other rightist, that reform is necessary. Whether or not it CAN happen, is a completely different matter. My curiosity is whether or not the political will exists within the Canadian public to change the system, leaving out of consideration as I mentioned the two failed cases in B.C. I also would like to know if Canadians would support a royal commission on electoral reform. I’m not of the “ideal Canada” view, because my idea Canada would be one that already has reformed it’s electoral system, its senate and it’s entire parliamentary system (I’m all for federalism over this parliamentary, partisan showcase). Yes, I’m aware of the 66%, the 7 Provinces and the Supreme court rules, but wouldn’t it be “nice” to see if there is at least any public interest in the subject. If not, then lets stay with our anachronistic first-past-the-post system, which continues to support conglomerations of support, instead of percentages. Now, I’m by no means an expert on the electoral process, but when we have a government being elected by 36% of the people when 59% of the voting population took part in an election…isn’t it time to get scared for democracy?
December 17th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Just to be clear I agree that Susan assumes more of a connection between you and Chavez than there may be – I was just agreeing with her thesis. Regionalism, however is at the core of Canadian constitutionalism, in fact much of the constitution is written in support of it. It is nice to talk about reform, indeed I would prefer a system without provincial governments – i mean Canada is so hopelessly small in population why so we need so many layers of government- this just a relic of administrative expediency from our pre-railroad days. But alas, we are stuck with it. It would also be nice if we lived in a society where people don’t work and pursue aesthetic aims, and where no puppy went hungry, and where serial monogamy was re-named serial monotony, but look daydreaming and wishful thinking will get you no where. The only way you would ever see such a thing in your lifetime would be under the barrel of a gun, a lot of guns, and we don’t really have the right to those now anymore do we. So suck it up, pay your 45% tax and suffer the fact that the leeches have their claws in your pockets.
December 17th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Your defeatism Travis belies your intelligence of this issue. I this with more discussion and mediation it might be possible to move to a more representative democracy then our regionalized one that currenty allows for more centralized power. I am seeing these days, much more power in the hands of local municipalities and provinces and this is a good thing. A province and city will know better what it needs then the central government. Even the US system allows for this on a more consistent basis then our system. No amount of dreaming and fantasizing is ever going to make life perfect, but if we all gave us and “sucked it up,” then change would never take place.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
I’d like to point out this is not a democracy, i dunno what school of thought the rest of you boxed in people are from , but it’s obviously not based in rational or reasoning. this is not a democratic system at all but a capitalist system. anyway I’d like to point out an error in the above article that states(and i believe Ryan already mentioned this)
“A government can be elected, as the most recent one was, with less than 40% of popular support across the country.”
a government was elected with less than 40% of popular support, with less than 30% in fact less than 25%. the present government was actually elected on 22% of eligible voters. but you don’t hear about those statistics they don’t tell you only 5,215,030 voted for the conservatives, yet we still here about this “democracy” we live in. and the defeatist attitudes of our friend Travis, gone are the days when people believed in something, when angry citizens tired of getting screwed by those in power started revolutions. we live in an era of mass media where people are told what to believe in how to behave. life has been made about convenience it dosn’t matter if politicians vote themselves 33% pay increase’s all the while talking about budgets and cutbacks to spending, Canadians want big screen t.v’s and iphone’s who care’s about freedom, who care’s that you pay an obscene amount in taxes.
I’m a Canadian my grandfather is German and my Father was born in Germany but moved here when he was a child, i am applying for German citizenship, the Germans don’t like giving people dual Citizenship’s i may have to renounce my Canadian citizenship to get a German one making me eligible for work anywhere in the EU , i would gladly do that in a heartbeat. Canada and their politics have become a laughing stock, This country is running itself into the ground based on the cowardice of it’s citizens, maybe when i get to Europe i’ll go to France at least they do civil unrest and won’t stand for sending there sons and daughters into a bogus war.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
RE: anarchist
Unfortunately what you highlight is true. We have become wholly too apathetic. With the exception of the last election in the U.S., their voter turnout was also declining in much the same way as ours is. Our taxes are low. So low, in fact, that our institutions, those same ones that many conservatives love and enjoy, are falling by the wayside. What’s funny, anarchist, is that these days conservatives vote in other “conservatives” whom they believe will work in their best interest. Many of these conservatives don’t realize that they are not voting in the conservatives of yore, the Burkeian conservatives if you will. They are voting in Neo-Conservatives who believe in a self serving, Gnostic heaven on earth of low/zero taxes, booming “big” business and trickledown economics.
Hello people! Reagan and Thatcher didn’t work. It doesn’t work. Reagan, Thatcher, Harper, Mulroney equal huge deficits with little to show for it. Did the Liberals do any better? NO! I see this all the time. “The trickle down, the trickle down. It’s coming its coming.” It isn’t. With Neo-Cons and Neo-Liberals in power, it’s the rich get richer, the middle class vanish and the poor get poorer. We’ve been tricked into believing that somehow these elites have our best interests at heart, and they don’t. Bailouts to support failing industries and corporate greed and huge bonuses. I agree people must work, but at what cost to our social survival. Don’t blame the leftists. They haven’t been in power since the 70′s. It’s been right wing, neoliberal economics that have been steering the way, and look at what it has delivered us.
Canada CAN DO BETTER! The only way it’s going to happen is if the people get up off their apathetic behinds and start voicing their opinions. Europe’s doing it right. France doesn’t take crap from its government (the executive in much of Europe has little power actually). So come on people. Let’s use this. What better time is there to get involved? It doesn’t have to be partisan, but it has to be active and not armchair jibberish.