PM wise to break reform promise

Before the last federal general election in 2015, Justin Trudeau and his Liberal party promised electoral reform should they be elected. Indeed, one of the first statements Trudeau made after being sworn in as prime minister was to declare that the election of 2015 would be the last to use “first past the post.” That system means whichever candidate receives the most votes is declared the winner of a riding.

In recent times, this method has usually meant that the winner has not received a majority of the votes cast and that the party forming the government has received around 40 per cent of the votes cast. Or, put another way, 60 per cent of the voters favoured some other party.

In a two-party system such as in the United States, first past the post usually results in one candidate receiving a majority of the votes cast. (There are other parties, but typically they collectively garner less than three per cent of the total vote in most elections.) This outcome is made more certain where gerrymandering (setting the boundaries of each riding or district to maximize support for one party) occurs.

Some argue that first past the post is unfair to third parties and may account for the dismal participation rates (below 70 per cent) by voters in most general elections. They contend that being a third-party supporter means your vote never is reflected in the composition of the legislature since your party is seldom, if ever, first past the post.

When the Liberals proposed electoral reform, it was not exactly clear what they were hoping to achieve. Did they want a more diverse composition of the House of Commons, or did they hope (before the election) that their third-place finish in the previous election could be improved by some new method?

There were rumours that Trudeau himself favoured a ballot that would allow the voter to rank the candidates. To determine a winner, the candidate with the lowest number of top rankings is removed from consideration and the candidate ranked second on those ballots is credited. This process continues until a majority is established. This system is used in Ireland and New Zealand, where it results, more often than not, in the formation of coalition governments.

A House committee charged with coming up with a recommendation regarding a new system was initially established with a slate of members that gave the Liberals a majority. A public outcry resulted in a change in membership, giving the opposition parties a majority. But, predictably, progress was slow and divisions deep and not amenable to compromise.

The government then undertook a series of consultations and surveys, but these produced no overwhelming mandate for a particular new system and identified a significant level of ambivalence regarding the wisdom of the whole reform process.

Faced with this reality, the PM declared, contrary to his earlier statement, that reform of the voting system would not occur during the Liberals’ current mandate. His statement set off a storm of protests, particularly from the NDP and some Conservatives, citing this as just one more example of Trudeau reneging on an election promise.

Well, it certainly was a decision not to keep a promise, but I think it was a wise one.

For most people, voting is almost mystical because it gives the individual an opportunity to participate in the most fundamental process of governing. Change in a familiar process most voters have long followed can give rise to suspicion if not outright hostility.

So, perhaps the PM decided the risk associated with adopting any given change without a prolonged campaign of explaining why and how could lead to disaster.

Personally, I like the French system. If no candidate achieves a majority, the two candidates with the greatest number of votes participate in a run-off two weeks later. That way, every member of the House represents a majority of those who voted.

David Bond is an author and retired bank economist. Email: curmudgeon@harumpf.com.