Reforming an outmoded voting system
Re Trudeau’s arrogant, misguided approach to electoral reform, Dec. 9
“Any electoral process that is not inclusive, engaging, fair and reasonable should and must be rejected. It is, after all, 2015.” RUDY CHERNECKI WASAGA BEACH
Where has Ryerson political science professor Patrice Dutil been the last four years for him to state that “our political system has forced politicians to compromise”?
The Harper government showed us why the current system needs to be changed. With a majority government, Stephen Harper behaved like a totalitarian. Parliament became a rubber stamp as the majority party bulldozed legislations and shut down or minimized debate on legislation. So many omnibus bills were passed, hiding legislation from Canadians.
There was nothing, except for the courts, to stop Harper from doing as he pleased. And Harper was able to pad the courts with his supporters. His critics were silenced through intimidation as public agencies were used for that purpose.
Like every totalitarian pretending to embrace democracy, Harper tried to improve his chances of winning the next election with electoral reforms that attempted to eliminate votes of groups considered less likely to vote Conservatives.
We must never let the last four years happen again. I applaud Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for his courage to reform a system even when he has the advantage of a majority. Salmon Lee, Mississauga
The assertion that our electoral system leads to “mostly good, moderate governments” that has “forced politicians to compromise” would be laughable were it not so scary and myopic.
Canadians have shunned electoral reform proposals largely because of a lack of information, apathy and any substantial discussion about these reforms. Kudos to Trudeau and his government for opening a most important (and timely) discussion about changing Canada’s electoral system — the same system that gave Trudeau a parliamentary majority. This is far from “arrogant.” It is responsible and mature.
If Dutil wants to champion Canadian “heritage,” he should invest time in shining some of Harper’s new (gaudy, embarrassing and antiquated) monuments dotting Parliament Hill. Leave “heritage” out of the consideration of electoral reform. Alexander Pekic, Toronto
Dutil’s paraphrasing of the commonly held thought that “not every vote counts” is misleading and his argument specious.
An understood tenet in democratic society is that of “the common good.” No plebiscite was undertaken when the mandatory seatbelt law was introduced. It was for the common good as it was a policy that showed seatbelts saved lives.
Many democracies began with the same British parliamentary system that Canada has and they have chosen a better path. Most Canadians are frustrated with the current electoral system and are insisting on something better. The government states “it will undertake consultations on electoral reform.” Sounds democratic, not arrogant, to me.
There is little doubt that the government of Canada will display instances of arrogance in its five-year mandate, but this is not one of those instances. It is the job of government to lead and, in this matter, so they must. Let the government undertake due diligence in their research on electoral reform. We do not live in 1791. Canada need not reinvent this wheel. David Bourque, Grafton, Ont.
I was concerned with Mr. Dutil’s fondness for our first-pastthe-post (FPTP) electoral system, “which has anchored our political culture.” The past 10 years of Harper rule have focused the thinking of many Canadians on the unfairness of our system, which awards a “majority” to the party that obtains only 40 per cent of the popular vote. So far, Trudeau appears to be treating his “majority” with more respect than our previous prime minister, but any government that obtains only 40 per cent of the popular vote should have 40 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Any other result is inherently unfair.
The only electoral system that ensures this fairness is proportional representation. PR encourages the working together of the various parties, instead of the divisiveness we have seen.
I agree that consultation is required in the reform process, but I question the need to have a referendum. Can we just get on with it? Most Canadians would agree. Susan Fraser, Toronto Send email to lettertoed@thestar.ca; via Web at thestar.ca/ letters. Include full name, address, phone numbers of sender; only name and city will be published. Letter writers should disclose any personal interest they have in the subject matter. We reserve the right to edit letters, which run 50-150 words.
FPTP has served Canada, the U.K. and U.S. very well. To proponents of PR I say: be careful what you wish for.
Everything is a compromise. However under PR, there seems to be less big compromise because if I or you don’t like the policies, or more likely feel very strongly about one issue, we can form our own political party. The result is more parties and special interests. To get a working arrangement, parties must often cater to the fringes, with the radicals dictating to the majority.
PR proponents frequently mention stable PR countries, but dismiss Israel, Italy, Japan, Turkey, etc. But really, do we really want them for our ideal? Do we want to take the chance?
Not me. Our system isn’t perfect, but like democracy, it’s the best available. Less Rice, Mississauga
I was intrigued why Trudeau of all people was being described as “arrogant” and “misguided” by Dutil. Of course he is totally wrong! As a voter, I indeed welcome the fact that my lone vote carries weight and that, collectively, Canadians will feel their votes do matter. Mimi Khan, Toronto
Let me get this straight: Despite the fact that there’s no constitutional amending formula in place to prevent any sitting government from changing the way we vote for our MPs, Dutil argues that changing the way we vote is not Trudeau’s decision to make? Of course, Trudeau with the wind of a majority at his back can do it.
Dutil’s arguments for the FPTP on the basis that we get good (and bad) governments with it and that’s always the way it has been done are laughable. Any electoral process that is not inclusive, engaging, fair and reasonable should and must be rejected. It is, after all, 2015.
Referendums are expensive and unnecessary. If there are consultations to be had, these must focus not on whether electoral reform should take place, but rather on how it should be changed.
What’s arrogant and misguided is any suggestion that our government should not tamper with electoral reform. Rudy Chernecki, Wasaga Beach, Ont. Dutil seems quite indignant that a FPTP-elected government would consider instituting an alternative voting system unilaterally. He asks, “Are we to believe that only votes that elect winners count?” Yes, professor, my vote in a conservative rural Ontario riding has not counted in years, perhaps never. I do not vote for the opposition and my vote does not give me legitimacy.
Using the logic of FPTP, I suggest that the threshold for voting in an alternative system should not be 60 per cent but 36 per cent, which seems to get most governments a majority. Using this new math, the 36.9 per cent of Ontarians who voted for mixed-member PR in 2007 would have won the day. Jim MacLachlan, Sundridge. Ont. A mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) can fix the inequities of the current FPTP system. It ensures that everyone’s vote counts and is easy to implement (two ballots; one for the person, one for the party), although complicated to explain, which is why a referendum is ill-advised.
Trudeau’s plan to appoint an expert panel is a more useful approach. MMP was recommended after substantial study by both the Law Commission of Canada in 2004 and Ontario Citizens Assembly in 2007. It is used effectively in, among other countries, Germany since 1957 and New Zealand.
It is time for this change so that people no longer have to vote strategically in order to try to make their vote count. Linda Silver Dranoff, Toronto In case professor Dutil missed it, the promised reform in the throne speech was precisely the prominent promise in the Liberal election platform. That gave Trudeau all the authority and legitimacy he needed and could obtain in a FPTP system.
We need an end to the system that elects Liberal, Conservative or any other party to a majority in the House with the support of a third or fewer of the voters. It is a mockery of democracy. We need governments that enjoy the expressed support of the governed. Hail to Trudeau for seeking just that. Earle Gray, Lindsay, Ont. Whatever new model Parliament chooses, it will no doubt be met with howls of protest that the Liberals are bringing it in to further their own interests, and an insistence that it be approved by the public in a referendum.
A better idea would be to have the new model used in the next election (scheduled for 2019) and to have the referendum occur after that (possibly as part of the subsequent election).
We could assess the new model based on experience, before making a final decision. In effect, the country would be taking the new model out for a “test drive” first. Peter Love, Toronto If the federal government truly wants to amend the current voting system, there is a simple way of doing it that does not initially require constitutional changes or referendums.
Based on their percentage of the popular vote, the parties could simply designate a subset of their elected MPs to form an all-party caucus. Suppose this caucus had 50 members. In the current House, the Liberals would select 20 MPs to be members, the Conservatives 16 and so on.
Bills would have to pass both in the special caucus and in the House. The changes could even be implemented now, based on the Oct. 19 results. If the special caucus proved to be desirable, it could later be enshrined constitutionally, perhaps one day replacing the Senate. Matthew Edwards, Toronto