How to reform our electoral system
Re Let Canadians vote, June 1 On the issue of electoral reform, logic and reason seem to have taken an extended leave of absence from the offices of the Toronto Star. Witness the most recent editorial.
Although a referendum might be an effective means for the populace to decide to keep or reject a practice with which it has no small intimacy, it is absolutely the wrong tool to use to choose a new and unfamiliar one.
Think about it. On what basis could such a vote be cast? Innuendo? Rumour? Fear? Certainly not knowledge. To make any referendum on electoral reform valid, voters would need several cycles of using a different system to get a real feel for the thing. In other words, give it a couple of decades before putting it to a vote. And if that system had been chosen without due consideration of what voters wanted from an electoral system, from their representation, from their democracy, then we will have wasted an awful lot of time — needlessly.
Logically, even the all-party committee cannot possibly consider the options helpful without some concrete input from the citizenry on just what problem electoral reform is supposed to solve.
The obvious correct procedure is to start with voters — with us. After all, voting is for voters. We do the voting. In this, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Minister Maryam Monsef and the Liberals have got our horse correctly harnessed in front of their cart: ask Canadians about their values and principles and then use these answers to paint a target — complete with a prominent bull’s eye — for the committee to aim at.
Will such a consultation be hard? Undoubtedly. It’s never truly been tried before on this scale.
Don’t like coloured dots on the walls of town halls? I’m not fond of these either. But then make some constructive suggestions. Be the stewards of democracy you claim to be. We need to do this. It’s necessary. Help us.
Done properly, the system the committee chooses will meet our explicit prior requirements. It will be “our” design. And it will be obvious that this is true. A referendum will be moot, useless . . . at least for another decade or so. Call for one then . . . not now. Mark Henschel, Toronto
There is a very simple way to put proportional representation into effect. Instead of insisting that all votes be cast by live bodies, we could assign phantom votes to each party to give the proportional effect. These votes would be cast on the direction of the party leadership, not much different from what now happens.
Here is how the parliament would stack up if this process were applied to last year’s election results: The Liberals have 184 seats in the present Parliament, and 38.5 per cent of the popular vote. They would have no additional votes. The Conservatives, with 99 seats and 31.9 per cent of the vote, would receive 49 additional votes, total 148. The NDP with 44 seats and 19.7 per cent of the vote would receive 48 additional votes, total 92. The Bloc with 10 seats and 4.7 per cent of the vote would receive 12 additional votes, total 22. The Greens with one seat and 3.4 per cent of the vote would receive 15 additional votes, total 16.
Each elected member would still represent his/her constituency. There would be no change to election rules or boundaries. There would be no extra expense or sinecure for party hacks to carry the proportional votes.
The election would come off as usual, but electors would know that their votes counted in the makeup of the parliament.
This process would be so simple that the present majority government could pass the appropriate legislation and to give it immediate effect.
Mr. Trudeau could begin to govern with a coalition, and, no longer having majority power, allow the coalition to rescind the new system if it was so inclined.
It could become an election issue and the country could decide if they liked what they had seen so far.
If one party were to gain a majority of votes, it could restore the old system without serious disruption. Ron Fast, Ancaster, Ont.