The right way to do reform

Give Prime Minister Justin Trudeau high marks for boldness, at least. Facing a political agenda packed with big, complicated issues — refugees, climate change, a sputtering economy — he and his ministers have chosen to add yet another daunting one to the pile: overhauling our electoral system.

Given everything else on their plate, the Liberal government would be well advised to back quietly away from this promise. But in interviews over the holidays, both Trudeau and his House leader, Dominic LeBlanc, doubled down on their pledge to make October’s federal election the last one conducted under the so-called first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system.

The Liberals say they will come up with legislation to do away with FPTP within 18 months, so like it or not we’re due for a lot more discussion of ballot systems, voting reform and the like. Here are the key points to keep in mind as the debate unfolds: There’s no crisis that demands urgent action. To hear the passionate critics of FPTP tell it, Canada’s political system is fundamentally broken. In every riding, the candidate who wins the biggest share of the vote takes the seat, so in a multi-party system the winner usually gets less than half the votes. Governments routinely form majorities with barely 40-per-cent support — as did Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and now Trudeau’s Liberals.

This isn’t ideal, but every system has its flaws. Canadians have voted under the current system since before Confederation, and it’s indisputable that we’ve been one of the best governed countries in the world (consider the many horrible alternatives). First-pastthe-post generally produces stable majorities and allows voters to throw the bums out when they get tired of them.

The best proof of that is Trudeau’s own victory in October. Canadians were sick of the Tories and under the current voting system they got what they clearly wanted: a fresh new government. Voter turnout went up markedly as well, reaching 68.5 per cent, showing that Canadians will engage if they feel they have something positive to vote for. All this under a system that, according to its critics, leaves voters feeling powerless and apathetic. The Liberals have no mandate to bring in any new system. Scrapping first-past-the-post voting was just one of 32 changes the party promised back in June when it put forward its ambitious agenda for democratic reform. It’s hard to remember now, but Trudeau was stuck in third place in the polls at the time and was trying to establish himself as the candidate of change by putting forward a laundry list of ideas. Clearly, the strategy worked.

Trudeau is right to forge ahead with many of the other proposals — such as a gender-parity cabinet, overhauling Senate appointments and empowering parliamentary committees. But, as the Star said at the time, doing away with FPTP was always going to be the “most problematic part” of the Liberals’ reform package. And since the government hasn’t spelled out what kind of change it might bring in, it can’t claim endorsement from voters for any particular reform. Support will have to be earned. Everything depends on what kind of change the government proposes. Most everyone likes the sound of “reform,” but the two main systems being discussed as alternatives to FPTP would pull our democracy in opposite directions.

Proportional representation, or PR, would allocate seats close to the share of the vote received by each party. There are lots of variations, but it would generally benefit ideologically driven parties that have a fervent base of support but can’t win over most voters. The NDP and Greens, not surprisingly, support it.

PR would encourage more smaller parties and we’d likely end up with governments formed by deal-making among the politicians after elections. Just as important, it breaks the link between MPs and voters in a particular riding. Trudeau cites that as the main reason he doesn’t support PR, and he has a good point.

The other main alternative is ranked or preferential balloting. Voters rank all candidates from first to last choice, and the winner is the one who gets a majority of first, second and other choices. Ranked balloting encourages politicians to reach out to supporters of rival candidates rather than just playing to their base, so it tends to foster less heated rhetoric and rewards centrist parties — like the Liberals. Predictably, Trudeau has said this is his favoured choice.

The bottom line is that “reform” can encourage livelier, more polarized debate — or its opposite, depending on the system we choose. Consensus on an alternative to FPTP is unlikely. Changing the voting system can’t be treated like any other legislation. This should be obvious. Bringing in a new way of selecting representatives is no technical tweak. It’s vital that any change be seen as a genuine step forward, not a bid by one party to rig the system in its favour.

Trudeau himself rightly acknowledged that when he told Maclean’s reform should not be “what’s best for a particular party that happens to wield power at this particular moment.” And LeBlanc agreed that changing the electoral system “should be done by consensus, or with broad support in Parliament.” When the Tories moved unilaterally to make smaller changes through their “Fair Elections Act,” the opposition howled — and with good reason.

The Liberals should not make that mistake on the much more important matter of changing the whole voting system. They promise a “national engagement process” to come up with an alternative to FPTP. And if they can cobble together a reform package that gains the support of the major parties, that would give it the necessary democratic legitimacy.

Failing that — and it’s hard to imagine the parties agreeing on a new system — the government should go to the people in a referendum, even though they are ruling that out now. Referendums on voting change have already been held in three provinces, setting a precedent of sorts. All failed, and some reformers are so hell-bent on dumping first-past-the-post that they are urging the Liberals to be “brave” and move ahead on their own hook. That makes no sense. The lesson of past referendums cannot be that the people are too blind or foolish to see the light; it must be that those who want change have to do a better job of persuasion.

The Liberals opened this can of worms last June when they included voting change in their ambitious reform agenda. They should focus on other democratic reforms and ease off the accelerator on this one.

Most importantly, they should not tarnish their reputation as reformers by forcing through a change seen to benefit themselves above all.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must win broad consensus before changing the election system