Trudeau’s arrogant, misguided approach to electoral reform
The throne speech delivered to Parliament last Friday featured the usual platitudes and vague commitments. However, it made one very specific engagement, a crystal-clear commitment: “To make sure that every vote counts,” it declared, “the government will undertake consultations on electoral reform, and will take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.”
The “first-past-the-post” system (also known as the “simple plurality”) is the one in which any candidate who earns more votes than any other is declared the winner. The government says that under the present system, not every vote counts. This is misguided and naïve view. Are we to believe that only votes that elect winners count? People routinely vote for the opposition. It gives legitimacy to anyone who criticizes government.
More importantly, the government declares that regardless of consultations, it will end the voting system that has been in use in Canada since democracy was introduced here in 1791 and which has anchored our political culture.
What is the point of promising consultations if the government has already made up its mind to proceed?
Remarkably, this voting system is not enshrined in our Constitution. The Constitution Act specifies that Members of Parliament must be “elected” but says nothing about what system is to be used to choose who will sit in the House of Commons. There is no constitutional amending formula that applies to any changes made to how Canadians vote. In other words, the government can do what it wants.
But the Trudeau government’s approach displays unprecedented arrogance. Over the past decade, three provincial governments tried to change the voting system in their jurisdiction, but committed to put the question to the people. In Ontario (2007) and British Columbia (2005 and 2009), relatively few citizens participated in the referendums and those who did rejected the proposals. A plebiscite on electoral reform in New Brunswick had been promised for 2008, but was never held as the Progressive Conservative government was defeated. It is worth noting too that the citizens of Great Britain were also asked to consider important changes to their electoral system in 2011. The Labour government’s proposals were also flatly rejected by enormous margins. Why should it be different for the government of Canada?
The way we vote shapes our political culture. Canada is not perfect, and its democracy has its faults. But it must be recognized that the system has worked. Our electoral system has forced politicians to compromise, and for a land so divided by space, language, religion and ethnicity, this is a major accomplishment. Canadians have been able to use the voting system to clean house, when the time came, and to start anew. The system has been clunky and sometimes may have appeared unfair. But the results are taken in stride, in the proper Canadian manner. Partisans defeated may shake their fists, but they know: “We’ll get them next time!”
Is this a fair system? Of course, many times the results sting. Some will point to the reality that most governments — including the current one — enjoy tremendous power even though most people voted against them. This happens at both the provincial and federal levels. Federally, the Liberal Party under Wilfrid Laurier was elected in 1896 even though it won fewer votes than Sir Charles Tupper’s Conservative Party.
But did Canadians receive bad government as a result? Historians can debate that question for millennia; the reality is that Canadians hardly considered the Laurier government illegitimate. They re-elected it three times before finally rejecting the Liberal team en masse in 1911. The reality is that our good old firstpast-the-post system has delivered mostly good, moderate governments. You don’t just throw that sort of heritage away.
The government of Canada simply cannot assume the powers of unilaterally changing the way in which we vote. It must conduct true consultations — rigorous and comprehensive consultations that are not simply driven by the selfappointed advocates of reform. Regardless of its quality, however, the consultation process must also include a referendum, no matter how much it costs. And if that referendum rejects reform, the government must abide by the result.
One thing is for sure: The electoral process is not Ottawa’s to change unilaterally. No government has the moral right to alter the precious process of elections without the approval of the people.
The electoral process is not Ottawa’s to change unilaterally
Patrice Dutil is a professor of political science at Ryerson University.