Proportional representation the best reform

It’s only system that lets people vote for, and get, what they want

The special committee on electoral reform is deliberating on changes to Canada’s electoral system.

The committee was created on June 7 and mandated to identify and conduct a study of viable alternative voting systems to replace the first-past-the-post system, as well as to examine mandatory voting and online voting. Special committees are created by Parliament for specific purposes, and report to Parliament.

I’m hoping it moves quickly on the matter of electoral reform. This is not constitutional change: it is a matter of simple legislation and regulation. It is long overdue. Our democratic health requires electoral change.

Our plurality (or first-pastthe-post) electoral system does not produce a sufficient measure of democratic representation. MPs routinely win elections with a minority of the popular vote, while the votes for other parties are effectively lost. The resulting Parliament does not reflect the political diversity among Canadians.

The debate in, and legislation from, Parliament is similarly unrepresentative of Canadians’ political opinions. Our unrepresentative electoral process leads to a reduced degree of electoral democracy and political legitimacy. It leads to citizen apathy and cynicism about politics. That erodes democracy.

The prime minister has assured Canadians that the previous federal election will be the last fought under the plurality system. The scholarly evidence is, hands-down, in favour of proportional representation as the best mechanism to secure the best measure of electoral democracy, of representation of diverse populations and of citizen confidence in electoral outcomes.

Alternative vote (AV) systems have been shown to produce no better democratic outcomes than the plurality system. AV systems allow people to indicate their first, second and third choices: if their first choice doesn’t win, their vote moves to the second, and so on.

It is worrying that the prime minister is understood to favour an AV system. But then, the Liberals stand to benefit from AV, as they are the second choice of many Conservatives, Greens and NDP voters. An AV system would keep the Liberals in power a very long time without having a majority of Canadians choose them as their first choice. It would consign other parties to the political wilderness. That is not good for democracy.

Only a proportional representation system allows people to vote for, and get, what they want. Votes for parties are aggregated and seats awarded on the basis of the percentage of the total vote. Thus, 20 per cent of the popular vote translates into 20 per cent of the seats in Parliament — no more and no less.

The Conservatives, in particular, want a referendum on changing the electoral system. I disagree with this. Referenda are inherently divisive (Brexit, anyone?) and are unlikely to produce positive change.

Canadians have shown that, when faced with voting on matters about which they don’t feel well informed, they vote for the status quo. The Charlottetown accord comes to mind, and the provincial referenda on electoral change have also demonstrated this. Most Canadians are not well educated about our electoral (and other) institutions. Both the media and the educational system largely neglect citizenship information and education.

The provincial governments that held referenda on electoral change did not provide robust public education in advance of the vote. Opponents spent heavily to advertise in favour of the status quo. No referendum should ever be presented without a strong public education program accompanying it.

Canada’s chief electoral officer, Marc Mayrand, noted that a referendum would cost the country about $300 million and six months of Elections Canada’s time and talent — and that’s without the cost of public education.

Those interested can send their view to ERRE@parl.gc.ca. It would be useful to send a copy to your member of Parliament, too.