‘LET’S ENSURE OUR GOVERNMENTS REPRESENT A TRUE MAJORITY OF VOTERS’
National Post readers respond to the question, “Should Canada’s electoral system be changed?”
Our strong system
❚The last thing this country needs is electoral change such as proportional representation. Since Confederation, Canadians have been extremely fortunate to live under such a strong and robust electoral system. We don’t need a process whereby the Rhinoceros Party can influence the balance of power.
Stephen Flanagan, Ottawa.
Electronic voting
❚No, it is not necessary to change Canada’s electoral system. The current system has served us all well. If there should be any sort of change, it should be allowing us to vote on the computer or on our phones. I just recently completed a union vote on my phone. It was safe, secure and very easy to do.
Allan Carty, Toronto.
A moot point
❚In the words of Mark Twain, “If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.”
E.W. Bopp, Tsawwassen, B.C.
Follow Australia’s lead
❚ The foundation of any electoral system is the voter. Canada should follow Australia’s lead and make it mandatory for people to vote. While it is true that in a democratic system, the voter is free to vote or not to vote, if most of the eligible voters exercised their right to vote, I suspect many of the problems we face would be solved and the political landscape would shift. As it stands now, only a relatively small proportion of the population chooses to vote, therefore, the elected officials really only reflect those voters’ opinions. Voting should be automatic and ingrained — just like fastening your seat belt when you get in your car.
Douglas Cornish, Ottawa.
Electoral dreams
❚Voter participation is plummeting, and we have ruling governments without a majority of votes. The true “voice” of society is not represented, or else marijuana would be legalized, we’d be more preventive than punitive on many issues and the Senate would be referred to in the past tense. We need to consider proportional representation in some form, bring voting into the electronic age, debate mandatory voting, updating rules applicable to candidate selection, donations and transparency and putting some teeth into Question Period. And, by law, cheaper beer in the summer! I dream.
Ward Jones, Richmond Hill, Ont.
If it’s not broken …
❚Should Canada’s electoral system be changed? Definitely not. The first-past-the-post has served us well, and has limited the resulting agony and distress of constant minority governments. We have seen what proportional representation has done to Israel and other countries, where they are constantly having to form coalition governments that soon break down, resulting in yet another election. Who needs proxy representation? If it is not broken, don’t fix it.
Fred Perry, Surrey, B.C.
Ranked ballots
❚The existing “winner takes all” voting method should be replaced by a ranked ballot (single transferable vote). This method produces a unique member of parliament in each federal riding who represents a majority of the voter’s preferences. This approach would not be strictly proportional, but it avoids the dubious use of party lists (of hacks, deadwood, and losers) to achieve proportionality. A ranked ballot would discourage attack ads and put an end to having to hold one’s nose for “strategic voting.”
Derek Wilson, Port Moody, B.C.
Vote-buying inanity
❚We do not have democracy, we have party politics. So? Get rid of party politics. Elect intelligent educated, knowledgeable, unbiased, mature people as your representatives. Policy? Consider what is already there. Change what needs to be changed by well-considered positions based purely on merit. The Senate? Elect an equal number of people successful in their own fields from each province to review any proposed legislation. I dread the run-up to any election with its ubiquitous vote-buying inanity.
Millie Penny, Mississauga, Ont.
Mess in Europe
❚The left favours proportional representation because they think it will guarantee them power in perpetuity. In reality, it would spawn a plethora of splinter parties who would be guaranteed seats for their chief functionaries even if they only received a small percentage of the popular vote. This would result in perpetual coalition governments with all the attendant governance problems in times of crisis. If Canadians wonder how this would work out, they need only observe the current economic mess that is Europe.
Brad Williams, Manotick, Ont.
Think outside the box
❚Whether we have first-past-the-post or proportional representation is not the question we should be addressing. Let’s think outside the box. Former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty cancelled the Mississauga gas plant. Stephen Harper reduced the GST. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair proposes $15 daycare. Motivation in each case: buying votes. Such cynical moves cause contempt for the self-serving nature of our politicians. But we should blame the system, not the politicians. The dynamics of our electoral system are all wrong. They encourage and even demand this kind of activity. The real solution: switch to term limits. Perhaps a maximum of three terms of no more than three years each.
William E. Lardner, Toronto.
Reign of error
❚I was never a fan of Brian Mulroney, who I thought was selling us out to the Americans but could never have foreseen that we would have an essentially far-right Republican Party government here in Canada. Now that we have experienced this repressive regime, we know that we must tweak our first-past-the-post system in such a way that 35 to 40 per cent of the electorate can’t set up such a reign of error and a wasted decade of essentially one-man rule.
Ron Charach, Toronto.
Undeserved clout
❚Changing the ballot risks giving political parties even more undeserved clout, tying parties closer to state institutions and excluding unaffiliated Canadians. Partisan mandate creep, through candidate lists or primary contests, is the only argument against modernizing our electoral system.
Kirk Zurell, Kitchener, Ont.
No checks and balances
❚Under our political system, a majority government can do pretty much as it pleases because we have no checks and balances. The following changes would inject a little more democracy into the system: first off, abolish the Senate, but if we insist on keeping it, its members should be non-partisan and elected by the provinces. We should vote directly for prime ministers, restrict their term to seven years and allow them to pick one third of their cabinet from the private sector. Give MPs the right to vote freely when an issue concerns their constituents. Finally, some form of proportional representation should replace the first-past-the-post system.
William Bedford, Newmarket, Ont.
Run-off elections
❚The best way for the voters to decide which candidates have the most support would be to hold run-off elections in constituencies where candidates have failed to win 50-plus votes. In these cases, a second round will be held after eliminating candidates who have failed to win 25 per cent of votes. This will allow candidates winning 50-plus votes to emerge.
Mahmood Elahi, Ottawa.
Tinker, don’t change
❚I think Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system works well as is. As we’ve just seen in Alberta, if enough Canadians want change, they will act. As attractive as proportional representation might be, having too many parties leads to paralysis. Our three-party system — with a couple of minor parties thrown in — seems balanced. That said, we do need changes in the political system. Members of Parliament and opposition parties need more say in public policy. And while the Senate need not be abolished or elected, its members should be selected more democratically. Our electoral and political systems need tinkering, not major change.
Andrew van Velzen, Toronto.
Hold a referendum
❚Should we change Canada’s electoral system? Probably, but that’s for Canadians as a whole to decide. Preferably, we should make the decision the right way, as New Zealand did: first have a referendum to ask whether Canada should keep first-past-the-post, or choose change. Then, if Canadians choose change, hold a second referendum with different electoral systems to choose from. Foisting a weird voting system on unprepared voters (as Ontario did in 2007) is not going to work.
Paul Nijjar, Kitchener, Ont.
Fringe representation
❚No, Canada’s electoral system should not be changed. In Canada’s multi-party system, it is unreasonable to expect one party to garner 50 per cent plus one of the popular vote. Parliament already moves at glacial speed, but changing the electoral system is no guarantee that more suitable, informed candidates will emerge, nor that democracy will be better served. Added representation by fringe party candidates can only stymie badly needed legislation.
George Pachovsky, Toronto.
A matter of math
❚Imagine a riding in which the results are: Candidate A (40,000 votes), Candidate B (30,000 votes), Candidate C (20,000 votes) and Candidate D (10,000 votes). It took 30,001 votes to elect candidate A. Thus 69,999 votes did not affect the outcome, meaning they were wasted. This is standard operating procedure for first-past-the-post. This does not seem like democracy to me.
Jon Bathmaker, Waterloo, Ont.
We deserve better
❚Canadians deserve a proportional government. We spend an enormous amount of time, money and attention on our federal elections. Shouldn’t the end result be that we get the government we asked for? In our last election, more than half a million Canadians voted for the Green Party, which amounts to four per cent of the popular vote. With 308 seats in Parliament, four per cent support should give the Greens 12 seats! Instead, we see fake majorities, whether it’s the federal Conservatives or the Alberta NDP, both which won majority mandates despite the fact that 60 per cent of voters didn’t choose them. We deserve better.
Dave Meslin, Toronto.
A tenuous democracy
❚Most industrial nations, like Canada, are representative democracies. Yet, Canada’s claim is tenuous: half of voters are not represented by anyone they voted for and two out three votes have no impact on who gets elected. Less than a quarter of MPs are female. The vast majority of industrial democracies use proportional representation. Every vote counts, and people are represented by the candidate of their choice. A far larger percentage of MPs are women. Voters are in control because they can vote sincerely. Parliament accurately reflects the way people
voted and can claim to be truly representative.
Gary Dale, West Hill, Ont.
A true majority
❚Canada badly needs to change its winner-take-all voting system. Canadians should only be asked to live under laws passed by MPs representing a majority of voters. We don’t have that today: we have rule by a minority, representing relatively narrow interests of the electorate. Instead, let’s ensure our governments represent a true majority of voters.
Andy Blair, Halifax.
Leave it to the provinces
❚The current first-past-the-post system should stay. A more proportional system would result in a proliferation of minor, regional parties and unmanageable coalition governments, many of whose members would be selected as a second or third choice, and not elected. Canada is a large, diverse country that needs only two or three national parties to represent broad national interests. Let the provinces represent the regional interests.
Tony Beckett, Victoria.
Pure opportunism
❚Our many problems notwithstanding, Canada is one of the truly blessed nations of the world. Any attempt to change our electoral system is pure opportunism on the part of any politician advocating it.
Derek Frew, Vancouver.
Wasted votes
❚Most emphatically: yes, Canada’s electoral system needs to chance. Maybe it will stop me from feeling every election that my vote is wasted when the winning candidate is not the one I voted for, and there is no way for my interests to be recognized. No wonder voter turn out is so low. Maybe if voters knew their support for a party could be recognized in some way, they would be more involved.
Naomi Faulkner, Toronto.
Term limits
❚Yes, Canada should change its electoral system, but not by going to proportional representation. That would only lead to instability in government, as is the case in Israel. The problem lies with elected members voting for what will get them re-elected and not what is good for the country. A person should be allowed to run only twice in the same legislature, after which they are not eligible to stand for election. In the second term, they are free to vote for the benefit of the country and not for their own benefit. The chances of this coming about are next to zero, however, as our parliamentarians would never allow this to happen.
Murray Rubin, Toronto.
No to coalitions
❚Changing our electoral system also means changing the type of government we have, with almost no possibility of reversing it. Whether it be proportional representation, ranked ballots or any other variation, the end result is the same: coalition governments. Coalition governments are a product of all the things we should despise about government, including backroom deals, groups getting policies passed as a return for their support for the coalition and fewer opportunities for the voter to remove the governing coalition from power. Often when parties advocate drastic electoral changes, it’s because those parties will be the major beneficiaries of those changes.
Jeff Spooner, Kinburn, Ont.
Vote repeatedly
❚Each riding should vote repeatedly until one candidate achieves a majority. No other method would be democratic.
Barry Bellamy, Lakefield, Ont.
More women
❚There are many reasons to change our system, including the need for better representation of women. The UN says they need at least 30 per cent representation for their voices to be heard. For countries that strive to have women fairly represented, proportional voting systems provide the structures to help make that happen.
June Macdonald, Toronto.