National Post (National Edition)
Death of electoral reform?
LATEST VOTE IN B.C. SHOULD BE PROOF CANADIANS DON’T WANT CHANGE
British Columbia’s government hasn’t exactly acted as a bulwark of Canadian national interests of late. It’s too busy blocking Alberta’s ability to ship its oil via a new pipeline, while at the same time eagerly consuming said oil, building numerous pipelines to ship B.C. natural gas and enjoying the benefits of Vancouver’s massive coal shipping terminal.
But it did recently do the rest of us a service, largely by accident. In calling a referendum on its electoral system, consummately bungling the job and thus producing a ringing victory for good old first-past-the-post. This is the third time B.C. has tried to sneak “reform” past its population, and the third time it’s failed. In the latest vote, opposition actually increased: 61 per cent rejected the proposal; only 39 per cent favoured it. Fewer than 43 per cent of voters bothered to cast a ballot. It’s the latest in a losing streak that includes failed efforts in Ontario, Ottawa and Prince Edward Island. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals abandoned a national reform plan when it became obvious Canadians weren’t enthused, and didn’t favour Trudeau’s personal choice in any case.
With any luck, this latest failure will put to rest the notion that Canadians are mad keen on changing the way we elect governments, especially among politicians who then decry the system that got them their job and launch some convoluted effort to change it all to a system no one understands.
Electoral reform is one of those ideas, like socialism and the NHL shootout, that may sound good in theory but doesn’t work well in practice. It belongs in that grab bag of brainstorms that spills open every once in a while when some bright political spark decides he/ she needs a “vision” to sell to an electorate that is presumably distracted enough not to notice the details don’t add up. It lives out there with that other ageless bad idea, “Hey, let’s build a high-speed train from Quebec to Windsor,” which overlooks the fact both terminal points are pleasant enough places that remain outside the main growth corridor precisely because of distance and the fact not enough people feel a compelling reason to go there, especially by a high-speed train that would cost billions more to build than politicians will admit or would ever be recouped.
Electoral reform might not be as pricey as pointless train projects, but shares a critical similarity in that it seeks to remedy a problem that doesn’t exist. “If it ain’t broke,” goes the aphorism, “don’t fix it.” Canada ain’t broken, in any way, shape or form. One of our biggest ongoing issues relates to the need to operate a fair and efficient method of handling the enormous worldwide demand from people who would rather live here than where they live now. If Canada operates a grossly unfair and inefficient means of choosing governments, all those would-be immigrants don’t appear to have noticed. They just see a country that works far better than almost anywhere else.
Electoral reformists argue that the existing system isn’t fair because it doesn’t closely reflect the breakdown in votes; a party can get less than one vote in four and capture a majority, good for four years of power. This is definitely an oddity, but it doesn’t seem to have hurt much, judging by 150-plus years of results, or by the notable absence of evidence that countries with convoluted voting systems are better run.
Denmark claims to have one of the world’s “fairest” electoral systems, in that its Parliament closely reflects the breakdown in party support. That may be so, but I defy anyone to explain the system to the average Canadian voter without the help of flashcards and a Sesame Street-level simplification process. Here’s a very small sample from the official Danish parliamentary website, which runs to 34 pages.
“Of the nationwide 175 seats, 135 are constituency seats which are distributed among the 10 multi-member constituencies, while the remaining 40 seats are compensatory seats, which are distributed among the three electoral provinces as part of the higher tier (i.e. national) seat allocation.
“Thus, before an election takes place it is clearly established how many of the 135 constituency seats each of the 10 multi-member constituencies shall return. It is also known how many of the 40 compensatory seats each of the three electoral provinces shall return. Depending on the actual outcome of the election, the 40 compensatory seats will eventually be further allocated to individual multi-member constituencies within the provinces to which they were first allocated.”
No doubt Danes have a basic understanding of how this works, and it all turns out OK in the end, but is it seriously any more desirable than FPTP, which can be explained on a cocktail napkin? (The candidate with the most votes wins, the party with the most winning candidates gets to form a government. Once in a while they may have to team up with another party, but it never lasts long.) And is Denmark any better run?
Electoral reform is popular mainly among parties that see it as a way of getting more power, or consolidating what they have. Canada’s Greens and New Democrats think it would garner them more seats, and a bigger voice in government. Liberals think it would let them dominate the majority of future governments, by favouring left-wing groups that could then be given small, unimportant roles in a Liberal-led coalition. When Justin Trudeau declared his devotion to electoral reform, it was because his people reckoned it would be immensely beneficial to Liberal fortunes, and bad for Conservatives, whatever other impact it might have on the country. It wasn’t about you, folks, it was about them.
B.C. Premier John Horgan’s New Democrats got 39.7 per cent of the vote in the last provincial election, more than four points behind the Liberals. His government is propped up by three Green members. If voters were eager for more of such arrangements they would presumably have supported a change to make such coalitions more frequent. They didn’t — for the third time. Quebec only lost two referendums before watching the independence notion fade; voting reformists have held four across Canada and lost them all.
“I think electoral reform is finished,” said deputy premier Carole James. “The public has clearly spoken. As elected officials you always know the public is right.”
Hah! Not always, but maybe this time, if we’re lucky.