Feds should take another look at electoral reform

OTTAWA—The government’s reasons for not putting in place a proportional representation system included their assertion that the House Electoral Reform Committee failed to propose an actual, detailed system for Canada. While the mixed-member proportional system got a lot of attention during the hearings, people were concerned about whether a party list would be required, and whether they would still have representation by someone they could connect with in their local riding. The government chose to cancel the whole effort and keep us trapped in the nineteenth century rather than look at other alternatives. There are many different ways to make elections and government more representative and more democratic. My current favourite is a system with multi-member ridings and ranked ballots. This system would involve single transferable votes (which the Liberals like), and would not require re-drawing the riding boundaries (which sitting MPs would like). In this system, the percentage of votes cast for a party would be roughly proportional to the number of seats it wins (which most Canadians would like). There’s no party list and people would have multiple local representatives to contact when they needed help (which local activists and voters would like). The multi-member riding would be a group of existing ridings—maybe five or more ridings together in an urban area, and as few as two or three in rural and northern areas. In a group of five ridings, for instance, we would elect five members to represent the whole multi-member riding. The parties could each run five candidates in the election, if they wanted, and nominate a more balanced slate that includes women and minority candidates. Independent candidates, or well-known and liked local candidates from smaller parties would have better chances of winning a seat. All of these changes would improve the diversity of voices in the government, leading to better decisions that serve the full spectrum of interests. Even if far-right or other fringe parties gained popularity, they would probably never be able to steal the whole government, as is the case now. From the voters’ perspective, not much changes; they still get a single ballot but they can rank the candidates. They can choose the party they like, but also choose the candidate they like, who may be from another party, or an independent, and make a third, fourth, and fifth choice. It would make strategic voting unnecessary, and save us from another false majority like the Liberal government’s win in the 2015 anything-but-Harper election. It would also eliminate the need to cast your single vote for a candidate you do not like, just because they are from the party that you align with. To get elected, candidates need to reach a set share of the votes, determined by the number of positions to be filled. In a five-member riding, they would need to get approximately one-sixth of the votes to win a seat. The voter’s first choice defaults to their second choice if their first-choice candidate is at the bottom of the count and has no chance of winning If their first-choice candidate already has enough votes to win a seat, then any surplus votes are redistributed according to their second choice. The third, fourth, and fifth choices continue to be transferred in the same way until all the seats have been filled based on candidates being the first, second, or third, etc. choice of a sufficient number of voters. This ensures that very few votes are wasted, unlike our current first-past-the-post system, where the difference of a small number of votes can elect a candidate with marginal approval. This system would engender a more real link between the riding and its representatives. It would no longer be sufficient to parrot party platitudes or count on the party leader to pull the vote in a local riding. There would be more incentive to campaign on local and regional issues. In addition, if candidates know that they can win a seat based on being the second or third choice of a sufficient number of voters, the campaign discourse becomes more about the issues and less about attack ads and negative campaigns. In our current system, the single party representatives elected don’t reflect the full diversity of their constituents. With five seats in a riding, voters would be able to connect with one or more of the five representatives who most closely reflect their own views and values. We might find that the elected representatives share the load, and take on differentiated portfolios of issues so they can develop a deeper understanding and expertise of the big issues. We need electoral reform now, before we get to another election that gives us a false majority led by another ideologue who represents only themselves and the power elites. Without electoral reform in time for the 2019 federal election we run the risk of Kevin O’Trump running Canada, and that’s really scary. There is still time for Elections Canada to develop and implement a system of multi-member ridings and single transferable votes before 2019. We don’t have to re-draw the ridings, just group existing ridings in a fair way. The mechanism for calculating preferential ballots is well researched and easy to implement without further deliberating (read: delaying). The political parties will adapt, as they always have, and will be compelled to come up with strong candidates who actually reflect the interests of the ridings they wish to represent. This is the type of democracy Canadians deserve. We need proportional representation to protect us from un-democratic control of our governments by corporate and wealthy power elites, like what is happening all over the world now, not only in the United States. We need to give all Canadians a real voice in the decisions that shape our future together. Katie Oppen is an Ottawa-based activist who volunteers with Fair Vote Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service. The Hill Times

Feds should take another look at electoral reform

It’s worth considering a PR system, beyond mixed-member proportional.

Why we (still) need a new election system

Proportional representation like participation medals: everyone feels good, no one wins

Here’s how new Democratic Institutions Minister Gould can chart successful path

Why we (still) need a new election system

Canada needs a modern, national health data architecture

To address online harms, Canada must commit to digital media literacy

A cure for multiple sclerosis could be just around the corner

Renewable energy is the way to go, says letter writer

Supporting local broadcasters is critical for our democracy

Electoral reform story missing important info

Democracy does not mean majority rule

From zero-to-expert in 6.6 minutes

Canadians deserve an open, transparent and factual debate on electoral reform

Preferential ballots would make wedge politics less effective

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Feds should take another look at electoral reform

It’s worth considering a PR system, beyond mixed-member proportional.

Get The Policy Briefings Newsletter