Electoral reform may yet be coming
Ayear after the Liberals came to power promising to abolish the system that elected them, where do things stand with electoral reform?
Even as the parliamentary committee struck to examine the subject, wrapping up months of public hearings, sets to work on its report, media wisdom is that it will all prove to have been a waste of time. Notwithstanding Justin Trudeau’s protestations that he remains “deeply committed” to reform, his earlier musings that any change would need “substantial” public support are taken as a sign the project is dead in the water.
If the Liberals ever had any genuine interest, runs the argument, that began to dissolve the day they took office. Lacking consensus among the parties, absent much public interest, without sufficient time in any event, the possibilities of reform diminish by the day. Advantage, status quo.
Maybe so. Nevertheless, the situation is more fluid than that analysis would suggest. There are a number of players in this game, and many pieces in play: different proposals, different processes, different timetables, with public opinion as the wild card. That makes room for negotiations, alliances, movement.
The committee will be the forum, at least initially. Having conceded the parties should be represented on the committee in proportion to their share of the popular vote, the Liberals do not control it. Some combination of parties will be required for a majority. While the government is not bound to accept its recommendations, they would be hard to ignore, especially in the presence of a cross-party consensus. Is such a thing possible?
Let us consider the positions of the various parties. The Liberals may be in power, but that does not mean they can just do what they like. I do not think they could simply renege on such an unequivocal promise; neither could they use their majority to ram through their own preferred change unilaterally.
The government has built up enormous goodwill over the past year on the premise that it was different from previous governments: less cynical, more idealistic. There are better ways to spend that capital than to such crassly self-serving ends. And the same dilemma that forced them to give up control of the committee would come into play: the logical contradiction of using a parliamentary majority they have themselves declared to be false and illegitimate to preserve their hold on that same majority would surely be too much to sustain.
Bottom line: the Liberals would probably favour ranked ballots, given a choice, as it is generally held to favour them; would settle for the status quo; and would most likely want to head off proportional representation. But there are ways to shape events to their liking without playing the heavy.
The Conservatives, meanwhile, are supposed to want nothing to do with reform. Their insistence on a referendum to approve any change is seen as simply a polite form of obstructionism, inspired by the belief that the mulish public would inevitably reject any change that was proposed.
But that’s not what they’ve been saying, and more to the point it’s not clear that’s what they want. The status quo to which the Tories are supposedly devoted is the system that has condemned them to opposition in 80 of the last 120 years. It’s the Liberals who have benefited most from first past the post, by virtue of having concentrated their support in one or the other of the two most populous provinces.
The suppression of Conservative ideological differences, in the service of creating a Tory big tent — again, a necessity of first past the post — has likewise been to the advantage of the Liberals, the non-ideological party par excellence. Were the different strands of conservatism represented by two or three parties rather than one, as the left’s are, it’s entirely possible the total “universe” of voters available to it would expand. In the five elections since the creation of the unified Conservative party, it should be recalled, it has taken a smaller percentage of the popular vote on average than in the years when the movement was divided between the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties.
On balance, however, the Conservatives would probably still prefer first past the post to the alternatives, with ranked ballots least favoured for the same reason the Liberals prefer it.
As for the NDP and the Greens, we know what they want: proportional representation — with their preferred variants again hewing closely to their partisan interests. The Bloc Québécois, too, favours PR, now that first past the post’s distortions are no longer working to its benefit.
How might this all play out? Conceivably, the Liberals and Conservatives might combine to block proportional representation. But in favour of what? The Tories don’t want ranked ballots, and the Grits have ruled out the status quo. A LiberalNDP deal, then? Again, on what basis? The NDP wants PR, while the Liberals want ranked ballots.
That leaves a right-left deal. Might the Conservatives agree to join an allopposition front in favour of PR, in exchange for putting the proposal to a vote of the people? They well might, according to the Tories’ electoral reform point man, Scott Reid. “A referendum on a proportional system,” he told reporters the other day, “would be something on which you could very likely get a consensus.”
There is much more still to negotiate, of course. But that’s the point: I have a feeling this isn’t over just yet.
MIGHT THE CONSERVATIVES AGREE TO JOIN AN ALL-OPPOSITION FRONT IN FAVOUR OF PR, IN EXCHANGE FOR PUTTING THE PROPOSAL TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE? — ANDREW COYNE