Debating ideas on how to improve our political system is seen by some as a luxury that has little relevance to the daily lives of Canadians. Many believe that tackling economic challenges, social pressures and fiscal limitations need to trump everything else.
On the surface, it sounds like a reasonable demand. After all, those challenges are coming at us forcefully and will have measurable and significant impact on Canadians' quality of life.
However, it is precisely because of the nature and magnitude of the questions that are before us as a society, we need to take the matter of electoral reforms extremely seriously.
Inherent in the idea of democracy is a fundamental belief that citizens' participation in the political process leads to wiser decision-making process, greater accountability and better governance. Therefore, the more inclusive our democracy is, the better equipped we are to govern ourselves.
Prosperity is a critical responsibility of our governments, and ensuring citizens' engagement in a meaningful way in our political processes is a fundamental element for governments to fulfill their role.
I have proposed ideas to improve our political system, including the establishment of an association for politicians and mandatory voting.
Another opportunity to reform our system is to address the shortcomings of our current "first-past-the-post" electoral regime.
Currently, MPs (and other levels of government) only need to better their opponent by one vote to get elected. For example, in the recent by-election in Calgary, the winner garnered 37 per cent of the vote while 63 per cent of voters wanted someone else. This arrangement typically produces a mismatch between the number of seats won by a party and their proportion of the popular vote.
In the last general election, the Conservatives won 39.62 per cent of the popular vote but gained 53.90 per cent of the seats -- 166 seats -- in the House of Commons giving them the majority of the seats. Such disproportionality creates a sense that our system is unfair.
There have been many discussions on how to fix that apparent unfairness. One of the most popular ideas has been proportional representation (PR).
A PR system, however, would present some challenges. While it would ensure that the number of seats in the House of Commons allocated to each party reflect the popular vote, it would introduce a new class of MPs who don't represent specific ridings. Each party would have a list of candidates from which non-riding MPs will be selected to balance out their representation within Parliament.
Additionally, if the minimum threshold for winning a seat in Parliament under PR is, let's say, 5 per cent, then a party that collects that percentage would be guaranteed seats, which could encourage regional and single-issue parties.
Both B.C. and Ontario had referenda on implementing a PR system that were rejected because of the many unanswered questions that hover over it.
A more practical proposal would be a preferential ballot system (PB). The PB would require a candidate to win 50 per cent of the vote in their riding before they are declared a winner. Voters would be asked to rank their candidates of choice. If no candidate achieved 50 per cent of the vote then the candidate with the least number of votes would be dropped and their voters' second choice would gain those votes. If that still didn't produce a winner, the same process is applied again until a candidate garnered the coveted 50 per cent.
The PB system would ensure that no voter would be compelled to vote strategically because they would have the ability to rank their preferred candidates. This process would ensure that the winner was the choice of at least 50 per cent of voters. Also, it would preserve our representative parliamentary democracy where each MP would remain accountable to voters in a specific riding.
Political parties already use this method to elect their leaders, and I see no reason why we should not examine its introduction to our electoral process.
A PR system has merit, but it also has some drawbacks. A PB system would not require major and cumbersome changes to our traditional electoral system yet finds a way to ensure that each vote plays a meaningful role in determining the winner and that no winner could be elected without the support of the majority.
Enhancing our electoral system to become more representative sends a clear invitation to Canadians to increase voters' turnout. Such invitation is essential to confronting the massive economical, social and environmental choices we face together as a nation.
Correction: A previous version of this blog started that 73 per cent of Calgary Centre voters did not vote Conservative. This has been corrected to 63 per cent.
Follow Omar Alghabra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/OmarAlghabra
Theoretically that referendum result is still legal; it may be that his revocation of it was not, unless by Order-in-Council. But OiC's shouldn't be able to overrule referenda.
The proportional rep votes in BC should have been by the normal referendum formula used in BC, 50% plus one. Instead they were skewed with high requirements, and the first one in particular, close to the unreasonable 66% (60%?) thresshold but with 75 of 77 ridings in support, should have become law; the NDP demurred because they wanted to shut out a certain fringe party........
What he is proposing is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_vote
What you want is either MMP, STV, or List-PR.
Of course it's unfair, but that's because *every* voting system is unfair. [1] Frankly, first-past-the-post is a reasonable way to elect our representatives. It won't always produce optimal results, but no voting system will. I think our efforts would be better spent on parliamentary reform. (Adding checks and balances to government power, finding ways to increase the role of opposition parties, allowing minority parliaments to function smoothly, and so on.)
[1] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627581.400-electoral-dysfunction-why-democracy-is-always-unfair.html?page=1
It maintains the regional riding representation while ensuring that each MP has to garner majority support to stay in place.
It avoids the mess of PR while taking the edge off the divisive nature of FPTP.
It's also easy to understand and gives people an added amount of choice without added expense.
I can't imagine a more sensible way to improve the electoral system.
When no clear winner arises from the first ballot, a second ballot takes place 1 week later between the top two vote getters from the first ballot. Everyone gets one vote again on the second ballot. The winner will have a clear majority win every time.
Preferential ballots remove the fundamental Right of Equality, it tosses that Equality out the window in the name of expediency. Preferential ballots allow one persons vote to hold greater weight & value than another's. With preferential ballots your giving many people a second, third & even fourth ballot, while other people's ballots count only once.
Candidates win with less than 50% of the vote under our FPTP system because there are more than 2 candidates running, which often results in vote splitting. A second ballot FPTP system solves that vote splitting problem.
I will choose a second choice when I know all the choices that are available to me & not before. One person, one vote is the only Democratic way to vote.
How can anyone make an informed decision or even suggest Preferential ballots to be Democratic, when you don't know all the choices beforehand.
How would you like to buy your car like that. My first choice is the Black Honda Civic, 2nd choice the White Honda civic & my 3rd choice is the Blue Honda civic. How many people would be happy buying their car that way?
Surely you already know who your second choice would be and could make that clear on election day without all the added fuss.
And unlike cars--of which there are many choices--you essentially only have a couple choices of MP, and there's no way you don't already know who you'd vote for second.
Eliminate my first choice, then let me see the remaining choices. How can I possibly make an informed decision otherwise?
Only 40% & 60% of ridings would ever need a second ballot, a second ballot system would push the total election cost up by less than 50%. Everything is already in place & roughly half of the ridings would be having a second ballot.
What was your fist reaching to the car scenario, not good I would bet. Well that's what your reaction to preferential ballots should be, your first instinct was telling you the truth. You simply tried to rationalize that instinct out of the way.
People will see that their vote will actually make a difference with such a system. When you get to the second ballot with only 2 candidates & you don't want one to win. What better motivation could you find than to cast a ballot directly against someone you don't want to win.
A PB system could be acceptable if you're voting for a leader within a party. But if the above mentioned scenario happened enough times in a closely fought election, you could end with a government that has a lower percentage of the popular vote than the official opposition. Which occasionally happens now anyway. But you could also end up with a government that would've been the official opposition under the current system. And that would be worse.
I think the biggest problem with our electoral process is, the geographical size of the ridings carries more weight than population density. Which means you have people who live in the country making decisions for those who live in the cities. But often city dwellers live under a completely different dynamic that people who live in rural regions don't understand.
Fixing our electoral process starts with making ridings more balanced according to population. A system that enables the Harper government to hold 54% of the seats with 39% of the vote doesn't adequately represent that.
If more people would prefer the CPC over the NDP when the Liberals are no longer an option, then of course the CPC should win. That's kind of the point isn't it?
The CPC candidate would have more than 50% of the popular vote.
Seems to me you're just imagining a result you wouldn't like and then trying to conform others to it.
The major cities are the where most Canadians live. Let's say you have 8 million people living in a province. 4 million live in a major urban area and 4 million live in the rest of the province. In order for an election to be truly representative of the will of the people, you'd have to have an equal number ridings between the urban area and the rest of the province.
But that's not how things work in Canada. The major population centers actually have about 1/3 fewer ridings compared to the population they represent.
Until cities are given more ridings which are truly indicative of their population, Canadian democracy will not honestly be one person = one vote.
But proportional representation, PR, has the additional feature of NOT selecting for regional interests over national ones, like 1st past the post, and also like PB. In contrast, PR can represent (large) minority or dissenting opinion that is not regionally concentrated. The environmental movement is an example of one of these under-represented, nationally dilute but significant contistituencies.
In an era where we collectively invest fortunes of money and statistical know-how into predicting how people will vote, or manipulating them to vote in a terribly flawed and unrepresentative system, could we divert some of that fortune into creating a system combining PR and PB? Yes. It is basically rocket science, but guess what? We're good at that too. Is anything more important than deciding who makes our decisions?
First politician past the post with this idea gets my vote, 1st 2nd and 3rd choice.
-The PR system proposed in Ontario a few years ago was so poorly explained to the populace. This may explain why it was rejected. It was likely explained so poorly because electoral reform does not favour the status quo.
-As far as the "no representation in your riding argument", I submit that a FEDERAL government should look past rewarding localities for their "faithful support". The FEDERAL government should be acting in the best interest of ALL Canadians, not just those that will re-elect a candidate if he builds gazebos and hockey arenas in their riding.
-As far as PR favouring regionalism and single-issue parties, that's a bit of a laugh. Anyone remember the Bloc Québécois as "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition"? Ho hum.
-If I may submit some ideas on electoral reform
1) Abolish the Senate. It truly is a pointless waste of money.
2) Proportional Representation. Let's get the voice of the populace heard.
3) Fixed Legislative Terms (4 years regardless of majority/minority gov't status)
4) Get Rid of the Governor General and sever ties with the UK. For real. We're all grown
up.
Paul Martin made many comments on how we needed democratic reform, BEFORE he lost the majority.
Seems to me you're just making excuses for the status quo because you like who's in power.