CHANGE DEMANDS A DRIVER
For electoral reform, we may need another Stephen Harper, Jonathon Swanson writes.
The weaknesses of the system we use to elect our government have been well documented. The system we use is called first-past-thepost, and it often leads to Parliaments where the number of MPs a party has does not match the level of support of the party. For instance, a party with 35 per cent of the vote across Canada could be, and has been, able to form a majority government because of the nature of the system.
So when Justin Trudeau announced the Liberals were committed to electoral reform — making the system more representative of the views of Canadians — many people were elated. But we recently learned the government has no intention of making 2015 the last federal election using first-past-the-post.
For Canadians enthusiastic about electoral reform, the announcement is disappointing. The momentum for change may have peaked, as electoral reform is not the kind of sexy topic that brings with it the same kind of scrutiny as budgets or fighting terrorism.
So what will it take for more Canadians to get behind the movement for change? New Zealand in the 1990s provides an example, because New Zealanders did change the way governments are elected. Why? Because they were very, very angry.
In 1984, at a time of economic downturn, New Zealanders elected a new left-wing Labour government. Voters had reasonably anticipated Labour would work toward fulfilling its election promises. But as the economic situation worsened, the traditional party of the left suddenly took a lurch to the right. This was the era of Reaganomics, Thatcherism and free trade. And while it might be expected that right-wing parties would propose similar policies, in New Zealand the policies came suddenly, from the left, and thus from left field.
The Labour government then began a whirlwind sell-off of state assets, corporatization of entities like New Zealand Post, and full-scale privatization of others. Benefits, public service wages and agricultural subsidies were all targeted, as were nearly all other aspects of government spending. The economy went through a painful overhaul. The changes were fast and furious and left voters in a state of shock.
As in Canada, some commentators had been critiquing the way parties came to power in New Zealand, as they also used the first-past-the-post system. In this system, the country is divided into electorates — ridings — and the winner in each electorate enters Parliament. As in a horse race, the winner was the winner regardless of the percentage of votes received, and the party with the most seats after all of the electorates were counted got to govern.
The problem is this system does not reflect the actual intentions of the overall voting population. As in Canada, a party could win a majority of seats in Parliament with only 30 to 35 per cent support across the country. Smaller parties faced exclusion because their support was geographically broad but nowhere concentrated in one electorate. Voters in strong liberal or conservative electorates were wasting their votes, either because their candidate had no chance of winning or their candidate was so far in front that voting seemed relatively pointless.
Many critics then and there, as here and now, argued a proportional system would more accurately reflect the will of voters. In a proportional system, the number of seats in Parliament directly reflects the percentage of the vote received. As a consequence, minor parties have a chance to be represented in Parliament. An added benefit in a multicultural society is that candidates start to reflect the makeup of the population more — fewer white male lawyers and more women and ethnic minorities. Parties also have to co-operate more, outright majorities happen less often, and the end result is more consensual government and less partisan confrontation.
Yet despite these arguments, support for reform only blossomed in New Zealand when the Labour government began its great betrayal. The party that had been elected to do one thing did its polar opposite, on a massive scale and with little warning. People who cared little about the system suddenly became passionate about improving it. It wasn’t the academic arguments that drove voters to want change — it was rage.
When it was put to a referendum, New Zealand voters chose to reform the system in large part because the two main parties, who had alternated power between them, hated the idea. The two main parties benefited from a system where they could obtain an absolute majority government with far less than a majority of the popular vote. When voters recognized that their politicians were opposed to change they decided that whatever tangential benefits there might be in electoral reform, here was an opportunity to “stick it to the bastards.”
Today, New Zealand uses a system known as mixed member proportional representation. This change has resulted in more coalition governments, a larger number of parties represented in parliament, and more minorities and women MPs. There have been similar referendums in some provinces, including B.C., but none have yet succeeded. The issue hasn’t gained much traction, even with over 10 years of activism by groups such as Fair Vote Canada campaigning for change.
So what could push more Canadians to support change? Support for electoral reform nationally seems to have peaked around the end of the last Harper government. Stephen Harper’s polarizing brand of politics and perceived willingness to manipulate the system made many Canadians ill at ease. If New Zealand is anything to go by, another four years of a majority Harper government elected with a minority of the national vote may have been enough to convince Canadians that the system is flawed. But as momentum seems to be fading, at least according to the Liberals, it may yet be that what Canada really needs in order to embrace reform is a few terms of a disliked, opportunistic, promise-breaking government. Maybe then we would be angry enough to demand change.
Electoral reform is not the kind of sexy topic that brings with it the same kind of scrutiny as budgets or fighting terrorism. So what will it take for more Canadians to get behind the movement for change? Jonathan Swanson In a proportional system, the number of seats in Parliament directly reflects the percentage of the vote received. As a consequence, minor parties have a chance to be represented in Parliament.