Why politicians need a dose of electoral reform

First past the post has reinforced mean attitudes,

At the University of British Columbia’s Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions (CSDI), we spend a lot of time working with “recovering” politicians. Many of them worry that our political system has become too adversarial, partisan and divisive. They fear this undermines trust in the integrity of democratic institutions, and weakens the capacity of politicians to work together. It discourages women from running for office, and diminishes voter turnout.

Could electoral reform change this? Electoral reform matters because electoral systems influence how politicians behave. Changing the way votes are translated into seats alters how politicians compete for and exercise public office. The question is: What do we expect from our politicians, and how might new electoral rules encourage better behaviour?

There are many reasons for the toxicity of our politics, including the winner-take-all nature of our electoral system. Seats are allocated to whoever wins a plurality in each riding. This deceptively simple formula often produces a perverse result — what political scientist Peter Russell calls “false majority governments.” Over and again, plurality “winners” are rewarded with absolute majorities of seats even though they rarely win majorities in the popular vote.

It would be one thing if our leaders approached governing with humility and a willingness to work with the opposition to find common ground, so that policies actually reflected and reinforced broad areas of consensus. But in our system, politicians exaggerate their differences, highlight wedge issues that divide rather than unite Canadians, and place partisanship ahead of the common good.

A more proportional system would lead to fewer false majorities. This could force parties to work more effectively together in Parliament. The common good is better served when parties co-operate.

The point is illustrated by the politics of electoral reform itself. When the Liberals announced their intention to give themselves a majority on the committee to examine alternative voting systems, the backlash was immediate. How could the government argue that the current system is not proportional, then use the same non-proportionality to allocate seats on the committee? It was not just hypocritical; it signalled the intent to proceed with electoral reform in a partisan way.

It has been extraordinarily interesting for political scientists to watch how precipitously the Liberal government descended into the kind of strong-arm tactics and contempt for opposition that was so notable in the last government. “Elbowgate” should serve as a permanent reminder of the power of false majorities to turn well-meaning politicians into petty bullies.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau deserves credit for correcting course and agreeing to a more balanced committee. This will compel the parties to work together. If electoral reform is to be pursued, it must be for the right reasons. The electoral system is a public good. It does not belong to any party. For the parties to do the right thing they have to work together, and for that to happen there will need to be public interest, engagement and deliberation.

That is why our centre, CSDI, is kicking off a public dialogue on electoral reform — as well as a Summer Institute for Future Legislators devoted, in part, to the same theme. Academics certainly do not have all the answers; there is no expert consensus on the best electoral system. Universities can, however, create spaces for public dialogue. We hope other institutions — universities, colleges, schools, think-tanks — will draw on their knowledge and expertise to kick-start similar public dialogues across the country.

Democracy is enriched to the degree that citizens grapple with the same issues as elected officials, so that the decisions made in the corridors of power reflect opinions formed in the broader social milieu.

If the public can come to judgment on the matter of electoral reform, it will be easier for politicians to do the right thing, for the right reasons, in the right way, and at the right time. Aristotle called this “practical wisdom,” and we’re all going to need lots of it in the months ahead.

Maxwell A. Cameron is Director, Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, in the Department of Political Science at the University of British Columbia.