How would proportional representation work in Hamilton—Niagara—Brant?

NOTE: This post was completely revised Oct.15, 2014.

How would proportional representation work in Hamilton—Niagara—Brant, for federal elections? 

Polls show more than 70% of Canadians support proportional representation for Canadian elections. Canada’s Liberal Party has opened the door to start implementing PR within one year of the 2015 election. The NDP and Greens fully support PR. 

So this is no longer an academic discussion. This is a practical discussion: if Canada gets PR, how would it work in Hamilton—Niagara—Brant? Liberals should be interested: they were shut out here in 2011. 

Mixed Proportional

With the Mixed Proportional system, you elect more than one MP. You have competing representatives, likely including someone you helped elect. 

You have two votes. With one, you help elect a local MP as we do today. The majority of MPs would still be local MPs. 

With the other vote, you can vote for the party you want to see in government, and for your favourite of your party’s regional candidates. So you help elect a few regional MPs, topping-up the local results to make them match the vote shares. Every vote counts: it’s proportional. You can vote for the regional candidate you prefer: it’s personal. There are no closed lists. Voters elect all the MPs. 

Competing MPs

You can choose to go to your local MP for service or representation, or you can go to one of your regional MPs from a “top-up region” based in your area. 

Accountable MPs

This open list method was recommended both by our Law Commission and by the Jenkins Commission in the UK. Jenkins’ colourful explanation accurately predicted why closed lists would be rejected in Canada: additional members locally anchored are “more easily assimilable into the political culture and indeed the Parliamentary system than would be a flock of unattached birds clouding the sky and wheeling under central party directions.” Our own Law Commission said “allowing voters to choose a candidate from the list provides voters with the ability to select a specific individual and hold them accountable for their actions should they be elected." 

Every vote counts. Each province still has the same number of MPs it has today. No constitutional amendment is needed. Fair Vote Canada says “We must give rural and urban voters in every province, territory and regional community effective votes and fair representation in both government and opposition.”

What would regional MPs do?

How would regional MPs operate? The regional MPs would cover several ridings each. Just the way it’s done in Scotland. They could have several offices, just as Diane Finley already has offices in Simcoe and Dunnville.

Two models:

Under the Law Commission of Canada`s model, the 12 MPs Hamilton—Niagara—Brant voters will elect in 2015 would be in one “top-up” region. Under the “moderate” model inspired by the UK`s Jenkins Commission Report, they could be in two top-up regions. 

How would it work out?

So what would these two models look like?

This simulation is only if people voted as they did on May 2, 2011. When every vote counts, turnout will likely be at least 6% higher, and no one will have to cast a “strategic vote.” We would have had different candidates - more women, and more diversity of all kinds. We could even have different parties. Who can say what would be the result of real democratic elections?

Meanwhile, I’ve done simulations on the votes cast in 2011. 

One region

On the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results in Hamilton—Niagara—Brant on the new 2015 boundaries would be eight Conservative MPs, four New Democrats, and no Liberals. Yet those voters cast only 46% of their votes for Conservatives, 31% NDP, 19% Liberals, and 3% Green. If every vote counted equally, Conservative voters would elect six MPs, New Democrat voters still four, and Liberal voters two MPs. 

Since I’m projecting from the 2011 votes, I’ll start with the 2011 candidates. Suppose the seven local MPs were (depending on local nominations in larger ridings) Conservatives Rob Nicholson, Diane Finley, Rick Dykstra in St. Catharines, Burlington’s Mike Wallace, Beamsville’s Dean Allison; and New Democrats David Christopherson and Chris Charlton. In that case, Liberal voters would have elected two regional MPs from across the region, New Democrat voters would also have elected two, and Conservative voters one. 

The regional MPs for each party would be the party’s regional candidates who ended up with the most support across Hamilton—Niagara—Brant. Liberal voters might have elected Flamborough’s Dave Braden who got 14,594 votes and Bev Hodgson in Niagara Falls (10,206), or Waterford’s Bob Speller (12,549), or Andrew Gill in St. Catharines (10,358), or Hamilton’s Marie Bountrogianni (8,787).  NDP voters might have elected Hamilton’s Wayne Marston (21,931) and Welland’s Malcolm Allen (21,917) or Brantford’s Marc Laferriere (16,351). Conservative voters might have elected David Sweet (30,240) or Brad Clark (17,567). (See technical note as to how close Green voters came to electing an MP.) 

Two regions

These smaller regions are intended to be “moderately” proportional, less likely to elect MPs from smaller parties like the Greens. But in return, they provide better geographic representation, and more accountable regional MPs. 

Niagara—Brant

On the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results in this region on the 2015 boundaries would be five Conservative MPs and one New Democrat. Yet those voters cast only 50% of their votes for Conservatives, 27% for New Democrats, 19% for Liberals, and 4% for Greens. If every vote counted equally, Conservative voters would elect three MPs, New Democrat voters two, and Liberal voters one. 

Suppose the three local MPs (from larger ridings) were Conservatives Rob Nicholson, Diane Finley, and Rick Dykstra in St. Catharines.  In that case, NDP voters would elect two regional MPs, and Liberal voters one.  NDP voters might have elected Welland’s Malcolm Allen (who got 21,917 votes) and Brantford’s Marc Laferriere (16,351). Liberal voters might have elected Waterford’s Bob Speller (12,549), or Bev Hodgson in Niagara Falls (10,206), or Andrew Gill in St. Catharines (10,358). 

Hamilton

On the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results in Hamilton (including Burlington) on the 2015 boundaries would be three Conservative MPs, three New Democrat MPs, and no Liberals. Yet those voters cast 42% of their votes for Conservatives, 35% for New Democrats, 19% for Liberals, and 3% for Greens. If every vote counted equally, Conservative voters would elect still three MPs, New Democrat voters two, and Liberal voters one. 

Suppose the three local MPs were (depending on local nominations in larger ridings) Conservatives Mike Wallace from Burlington, and New Democrats David Christopherson and Chris Charlton. In that case, Liberal voters would elect one regional MP, and Conservatives two. The regional MPs for each party would be the party’s regional candidates who ended up with the most support across the region. Liberal voters might have elected Flamborough’s Dave Braden who got 14,594 votes, or Hamilton’s Marie Bountrogianni (8,787). Conservative voters might have elected Ancaster’s David Sweet (30,240) and Brad Clark (17,567). 

Two models: summary

By using two regions, both regions are sure of keeping all six MPs. On the one-region model, in theory all five regional MPs might have been from one half of Hamilton—Niagara—Brant. And with only six MPs per region, the proportionality is more moderate. 

Regional candidates

How would party members nominate and rank a group of regional candidates? It could be done on-line, and with live conventions. Likely party members in each region would decide to nominate the same candidates nominated in the local ridings, and some additional regional candidates. (In Nova Scotia in 2011, in all 11 ridings the Liberals nominated only men. Additional regional candidates would surely have included some women. Since polls show 90% of Canadians want to see more women elected, we’ll elect women when given the chance.) 

But voters would have the final say, since they can vote for their party’s regional candidate they prefer. 

More choice

For local MP, you can vote for the candidate you like best without hurting your party, since the party make-up of parliament is set by the party votes. In New Zealand, 35% of voters split their votes that way. 

Canada-wide consequences.

With the new 30 MPs, on the 2011 votes transposed by Elections Canada onto the new boundaries, the winner-take-all results for the 338 MPs would be 188 Conservative, 109 NDP, 36 Liberal, 4 Bloc, and 1 Green. 

When every vote counts, the result is: 140 Conservatives, 104 NDP, 64 Liberals, 19 Bloc, and 11 Green, using full proportionality on province-wide totals. 

With these two mixed models, the projected results are 140 Conservatives, 106 or 108 NDP, 63 or 67 Liberals, 15 or 18 Bloc, and 8 or 11 Greens. Close to perfect proportionality, while keeping all MPs accountable to real local and regional communities. 

Hamilton is an NDP stronghold, so the NDP could lose a seat here with the two-region model. However, across Ontario NDP voters would elect eight more MPs than with winner-take-all, including one more in Niagara—Brant. 

Canadian diversity

As Stéphane Dion says "I no longer want a voting system that gives the impression that certain parties have given up on Quebec, or on the West. On the contrary, the whole spectrum of parties, from Greens to Conservatives, must embrace all the regions of Canada. In each region, they must covet and be able to obtain seats proportionate to their actual support. This is the main reason why I recommend replacing our voting system." 

This is not a partisan scheme. Unrepresented Conservative voters would elect eight more Quebec MPs than in 2011, one more in Newfoundland, one more in PEI, one more in Northern Ontario, and one more on Vancouver Island. 

Of course, proportional representation would mean a lot for Canada. We would not likely have a one party government’s Prime Minister holding all the power. (The last Prime Minister to get more than 50% of the votes was Brian Mulroney in 1984.) Parliament would reflect the diverse voters of every province. 

An exciting prospect: voters have new power to elect who they like. New voices from new forces in Parliament. No party rolls the dice and wins an artificial majority. Cooperation will have a higher value than vitriolic rhetoric. Instead of having only a local MP -- whom you quite likely didn’t vote for -- you can also go to one of your diverse regional MPs, all of whom had to face the voters. Governments will have to listen to MPs, and MPs will have to really listen to the people. MPs can begin to act as the public servants they are. And all party caucuses will be more diverse. 

With this kind of power-sharing, Canada would look quite different.

If we had a Proportional Representation voting system, here are only a few of the things Canadians could have accomplished over the past twenty years:
Ø Engaged and motivated voters
Ø A reinvigorated democratic system
Ø More women MPs and a fair mix of party representation 

Our electoral system is broken and people know it:
Ø Disengaged citizens are ignoring their right to vote
Ø A dysfunctional conflict-oriented political process
Ø Majority governments with minority voting results 

Poll results on proportional representation

Environics asked in 2013 “Some people favor bringing in a form of proportional representation. This means that the total number of seats held by each party in Parliament would be roughly equivalent to their percentage of the national popular vote. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose moving towards a system of proportional representation in Canadian elections?”

Interviewing for this Environics National Telephone Survey was conducted between March 18th – 24th, 2013, among a national random sample of 1,004 adults. The margin of error for a sample of this size is +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Result: support 70%, oppose 18%, depends 6%, don’t know 6%. 

The Environics poll showed 93% of Green voters support proportional representation while 4% oppose; 82% of NDP voters support it while 11% oppose; 77% of Liberal voters support it while 15% oppose; 62% of Conservative supporters support it while 28% oppose; and 55% of voters undecided as to party support PR while 19% oppose and 27% said “don’t know” or “depends.” 

This is not new. Poll results have shown this for 13 years.

Technical notes

The rounding method used in the simulation is highest remainder, for the same reason the Ontario Citizens Assembly chose it: it's the simplest. Germany used to use this too, on the premise that it offset the risk to proportionality of their 5% threshold. Similarly it offsets smaller region sizes. 

How close did Green voters come to electing an MP in Hamilton—Niagara—Brant?  If discouraged Green voters in these 12 ridings had cast another 7,450 Green votes, they would have elected an MP such as Hamilton’s Peter Ormond (2,963) or Jennifer Mooradian in St. Catharines (1,924), taking a seat from the Conservatives.

Would second preferences, used in the Jenkins-inspired model, have changed any results in 2011? Sometimes, using the EKOS poll taken April 28-30, 2011. In Hamilton in 2011, they might have helped Chris Charlton win in a larger Hamilton Mountain—Ancaster—Dundas riding.