My introductory comments at an all-candidates meeting in Port Hope Sept.14, 2015.
This meeting has been called by our local Chapter
of Fair Vote Canada, to discuss electoral reform and get the stand of local
candidates.
Fair Vote Canada is a multi-partisan movement. As
of this morning we have 60,500 supporters, from all walks of life and all
points on the spectrum. Proportional representation is not a partisan
issue. For example, Conservative Hugh Segal is still a very
vocal supporter of proportional representation.
Proportional representation
means every vote will count equally. When every
vote counts, voters won’t have to worry about splitting the vote, or casting a
strategic vote. More young voters will find it worthwhile voting.
For the past several elections, at least 50% of all
ballots cast across Canada did not count toward electing a representative. In
2011, 39.6% of votes somehow elected a government with a false majority, with
100% of power concentrated in the Prime Minister and his Office.
Opinion
polls have shown at least 70% of Canadians support proportional
representation.
We will start
by seeing Prof. Dennis Pilon's six-minute video on the Law Commission of
Canada's recommended mixed-member model of proportional representation.
(This video uses the example of a 16-MP region from
Ottawa to Belleville, which would now elect 10 local MPs and six regional MPs.)
Of
course, proportional representation would mean a lot for Canada. We would not
likely have a one-party one-man government. Parliament would reflect our
diverse voters in each province.
But it
would also help a county like Northumberland. We would have competing MPs. Fair
Vote Canada says rural and urban voters
in every region should have fair representation in both government and
opposition.
Prof.
Pilon’s video showed a region with 16 MPs. That’s a good teaching example. The Law Commission said their model was inspired by the models used in Scotland and
Wales. Scotland has regions of 16 MPs. Wales has regions of 12 MPs.
Both the
NDP and the Liberals propose 12 months of public consultations to come up with
the best model for Canada. For example, regions with 12 MPs mean the regional
MPs are a bit more locally accountable, more anchored to real communities.
Ontario
has 121 MPs. If Ontario was organized in ten regions with an average of 12 MPs
each, that would still be proportional enough that Green Party voters would, on
the votes cast in 2011, have elected four MPs, just as they deserved. The size of the regions is a key design feature for public consultations.
East of
the GTA we elect 19 MPs. That’s too big for a single region. Our county doesn’t
want to elect a regional MP from Ottawa. Some regions will have fewer than 12
MPs, such as Northern Ontario with nine MPs. I can see the Ottawa Valley,
including Cornwall, with 11 MPs, making a good region. That’s the bilingual
district, 20% French mother tongue. That leaves eight MPs elected in our
Kingston—Peterborough region, from Lindsay to Brockville.
Locally,
in the last election, in our Peterborough—Kingston region which elects eight
MPs this year, 219,615 Conservative voters elected six MPs, 87,388 Liberal
voters elected one MP from Kingston, 89,947 NDP voters elected no one, and 18,151
Green voters elected no one. If every vote counted equally, with eight MPs
those same ballots would elect four local Conservative MPs, one local Liberal
MP, one regional Liberal MP, and two regional NDP MPs.
But as
Prof. Pilon just told us, when
you change the voting system, you also change the incentives that affect the
kinds of decisions that voters might make. For instance, we know that, when
every vote counts, voters won't have to worry about splitting the vote, or
casting a strategic vote. Thus, we should expect that support for different
parties might change."
And when every vote counts, turnout will be
higher -- perhaps 7% higher. So, when voters have more
choice, the results will be far more representative of our diverse population
and their diverse views. Who can say
what would be the result of real democratic elections?
One thing we know for sure: it is extremely unlikely that our region’s voters would vote exactly as they did in 2011. For example, if the Greens doubled their vote, an extra 16,000 new Green voters would have elected a Green MP.
Tomorrow FVC launches our “Where They Stand”
website. More than 50 Liberal candidates have stated their support for
proportional representation. Plus one lonely Conservative MP from British
Columbia.
Many other Liberal candidates are still undecided.
A few Liberals oppose PR, and prefer instead
another winner-take-all system: the preferential ballot in single-member
ridings.
A study on the last UK election showed that the
preferential ballot would have given the Conservatives an even bigger false
majority than the one they got, even more skewed than first past the post. But a
few Liberals, to be blunt, dream of being everyone’s second choice. They think
a preferential ballot would give them a partisan advantage. Luckily, I believe
the majority of Liberal activists realize that electoral reform cannot succeed
as a partisan project.
As
Stephane Dion keeps saying “I do not see why we should maintain a voting system
that makes our major parties appear less national and our regions more
politically opposed than they really are. . . . Preferential voting does nothing to
correct the distortion between votes and seats and the under-representation of
national parties compared to regional ones.”
For
example, metropolitan Montreal elects 35 MPs, but not one Conservative. In
2011, its 208,931 Conservative voters elected no one. With proportional
representation they would have elected four MPs. Canada’s second largest city
would have been represented in cabinet. The four MPs would have been the four
Conservative regional candidates who got the most support from regional
Conservative voters.
Last Dec. 3rd in the House of Commons
the NDP moved a motion:
“That, in the
opinion of the House: (a) the next federal election should be the last
conducted under the current first-past-the-post electoral system which has
repeatedly delivered a majority of seats to parties supported by a minority of
voters, or under any other winner-take-all electoral system; and (b) a form of
mixed-member proportional representation would be the best electoral system for
Canada. “
Of
31 Liberal MPs present, 16 voted yes, 15 no. Six others voted for it: five MPs
from the Greens, Bloc and the new Strength in Democracy party, plus even Brent
Rathgeber, the independent former Conservative.
This makes it easier, says Craig Scott, for local
MPs to get the support of people of all political stripes. They can earn
support for their constituency-representation credentials, not just for their
party. This boosts the kind of support MPs bring with them into the House of Commons,
thus strengthening their independence.
The
turnout in the 2011 election was a pitiful 61.1% across Canada (63.7% locally)
compared with 75.3% in 1988, and the turnouts around 80% typical of countries
with normal proportional systems:
Sweden 86%
Denmark
86%Sweden 86%
Brazil 81%
Norway 78%
Argentina 77%
New Zealand 77%
Netherlands 75%
Austria 75%
The panel
of three candidates will discuss:
(1) Do you feel the number of MPs elected to
Parliament from each party should be roughly proportional to the number of
votes cast for that party's candidates?
(2) Can a model of Proportional Representation for Canada respect the need for all
MPs to face the voters and be accountable to voters?
(3) If an all-party/citizen process recommends
adding an element of proportionality to Canada's electoral system, would you
vote in favour of implementing these recommendations in time for the following
federal election?
(All
three candidates present, NDP Liberal and Green, said yes to all three.)
No comments:
Post a Comment