Electoral reform is long overdue
Re Liberals’ electoral reform plan is legally futile, Opinion Jan. 18 Yaakov and Jonathan Roth suggest that the Constitution Act of 1867 presupposed “district-based elections” with one member from each and hence we are constitutionally locked into the first-past-the-post (FPTP) method of electing MPs. There are constitutional experts who strongly disagree with this view.
Based on the words of our Constitution documents, not fear mongering about the possible consequences and speculating on what the Supreme Court might think or do, it would seem that Parliament has considerable constitutional leeway to alter the electoral process of how MPs are elected.
The problem with the quasi-democratic FPTP election method is its systematic unfairness, inequality and discrimination against minority parties, especially when those groups of voters happen to be widely dispersed around the country. That is something that could well be challenged in the Supreme Court as contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 15, which gives every Canadian “equal . . . benefit of the law.” Terry W. Robertson, Kelowna, B.C.
“Electoral reform is the one promise I would hold the government to. It will fundamentally change the way we do politics, for the better.” G.W. BYRON, TORONTO
In their tortured jeremiad against democratic voting reform, the Roths appeal to the Constitution Act of 1982, a main feature of which is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As they must know, this well-respected piece of fundamental Canadian law was adopted, without referendum, by the Parliament of the day at the instigation of prime minister Pierre Trudeau. The Charter asserts the supremacy of the rule of law and goes on, in Section 15, to assert the equality of citizens: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.”
During the 2015 election the Liberals promised “to make every vote count.” This pledge of voter equality and representation in proportion to votes cast was also put forward by both the NDP and the Greens. Together those three federalist parties won nearly 65 per cent of the vote. All three promised to fulfil, finally, in Canada’s 150th year, the Charter’s aspirational assertion that Canada is a free and democratic society. John Deverell, Pickering Ad hominem comparisons to “foreign tin-pot tyrants” and elitist concerns around a “slap to the face of the Supreme Court” ignore the fact that it is marginalized Canadians who stand to benefit most by electoral reform. Young people, women, minorities, newcomers and other marginalized groups are more likely to support secondary parties such as the NDP or the Greens; parties that stand to benefit from a modernized electoral system — thus increasing diversity in Parliament.
Or worse, these marginalized groups often opt out of the non-inclusive political process entirely.
As someone who has never voted Liberal in my life, I find Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s principled stance on this matter — a position that will likely hurt his party’s electoral chances — enormously refreshing. It’s disappointing to see the authors and journalists covering this issues siding with the privileged elite, rather than supporting a long-overdue political reform that could easily reverse worrying trends around declining youth turnout during elections. Jeremy Murray, Toronto The bottom line: On elections based on a proportion of a large sample of the electorate, Conservatives would not have a snowball in hell chance of winning. What is happening now is an attempt to pre-emptively condition public opinion. Citing the courts, at this point, is to put the cart before the horse. Tony Morra, Mississauga Electoral reform in Canada is long overdue. Let’s stop raising false barriers, and get on with it. Steven Spencer, Pickering Here we are again with people claiming the federal government can’t change our voting system without facing the wrath of the courts or a referendum. Yet, on May 24, 1918, Parliament passed a law that gave women the right to vote in this country. Granting half the population the right to vote was not some minor change to our electoral system. There was no referendum, just legislation voted on by MPs and senators, all of whom were men since women only received the right to stand for the House of Commons in 1919, and sit in the Senate in 1929 — all of which without any referendum or hearing from the Supreme Court. We are due for electoral reform and all the noises being made by opponents pale in comparison to what women had to endure a hundred years ago. Time to move on. Mark Jessop, Barrie The Law Commission set up by the Canadian government studied our electoral system and, after a great deal of public and expert consultation and three years of review — some of which was by constitutional experts — recommended in its 2004 report a proportional way of electing members of Parliament. Only the U.S. and England, among all western developed countries, still use the unfair FPTP and they are basically two-party countries unlike Canada. Is this the example the Star wants for this country? Naomi Faulkner, Toronto Constitutional law evolves, and in the modern world most countries have adopted PR in order to give each voter an equal and effective vote, which our old system does not do. It’s more likely the Supreme Court would find our old FPTP unconstitutional than would reject PR. Maxwell Anderson, Vancouver This column makes clear why so many people are frustrated with both lawyers and the Canadian constitutional reform process. The two seemingly well-qualified authors successfully convinced me that there is no way to change Canada’s Constitution and that to even try to become even more democratic is doomed to fail in the courts.
We voted for “change” when we voted in the Liberals, and it seems the minority of dissenters will win the day again and stop any real change from ever getting passed the House, and when that doesn’t work, they’ll find a good lawyer, go to the courts, and get their change there. Albert Bangma, Toronto The Liberals’ electoral reform might be an insult to the courts, but not for ordinary Canadians who feel that their single vote is as important as anyone else’s. Mimi Khan, Toronto Re The right way to do reform, Editorial Jan. 9 FPTP can easily be “gamed” by an unscrupulous leader like Stephen Harper, who could, in the last election, have been “re-elected” to another five years of disastrous misrule, simply if the FPTPengineered vote-splitting between the Liberals and NDP had been different.
We simply got lucky, this time (does the Star think that another five years of Harper, “earned” by him getting 33 per cent of the national popular vote, would have been a good thing?) Next time it might be different.
FPTP has seen its day come and go. Canada needs a new, fairer electoral system, appropriate to the equal representation principles of Canadian society in the 21st century.
Along with the 67 per cent plus of voters who supported parties in favour of electoral reform in the last federal election, I call upon Mr. Trudeau to honour his election promises and enact electoral reform with a simple vote of Parliament (as was the case with FPTP itself ), at the earliest possible opportunity. Marcus Shields, Brampton It is inherently unjustifiable that any political party should decide on behalf of Canadians how their electoral process should function. It would be like the winner of a competition taking it upon himself/herself to unilaterally change the rules. This would never be acceptable to any of the participants.
Ultimately in any electoral reform, some sorts of safeguards or checks on power need to be in place. To proceed otherwise would be to confer upon a government far too much power to shape our democracy to fit their ends. Ross Hollingshead, Toronto It would be a waste of taxpayer money to hold a referendum. When faced with uncertainty, people will vote no to change. This is a waste of our political, editorial and public interest time. It can be better spent on issues that are a deep concern to most of us: jobs, economy, and social interests to name a few.
Mr. Trudeau should table what he proposes, allow a month for the members of the House of Commons to consider the issue, and then hold a private vote on the issue. No one will know how our MPs voted and all will only know the result. Dr. Ken Stock, Port Hope I agree with your stand on the need for a referendum on electoral reform. It looks as if major print media from coast to coast are united on this cause. You are right that a new government cannot make such a change by politicians alone inside the confines of the House of Commons. That’s especially true when the ruling party received only 39.4 per cent of the vote.
Justin Trudeau should call a referendum once it is decided what form of electoral reform he wants to pursue. Derek Bignell, East York I could not disagree more with your editorial. Electoral reform is the one promise I would hold the government to. It will fundamentally change the way we do politics, for the better. G.W. Byron, Toronto Your editorial implies that we can only have either the status quo, or a messy alternative. How about this? Keep the current voting system, but once Parliament is in place, give each party weighted representation on all matters of confidence in the House, corresponding to their federal vote percentage.
For example, when voting on the budget, a Liberal MP’s vote would be worth 1. Elizabeth May’s single Green Party vote would be worth maybe 15, to reflect the fact that she singlehandedly has to represent about 4 per cent of Canadian voters.
There are any number of ideas like this that could work. Let’s not be afraid to discuss them. Owin Lambeck, Toronto I would like to see electoral reform. I have lived in my riding for over 40 years and only once in all that time has my candidate of choice won the riding. I often feel that it is not worth going to the polls but I go anyway because I consider it a citizen’s duty. However, I know many people who say “What’s the point”? June Mewhort, Woodville