All Quiet on Electoral Reform Front
Prince George, B.C.- The Trudeau government promised the last federal election would be the last time ‘first past the post’ would be the form for winning a ballot, but there has been little to no movement since the Trudeau team was sworn in.
“The government hasn’t really moved a muscle yet” says MP Nathan Cullen.
The promise was to have a new system in place within 18 months following study and consultation with Canadians. “It’s perplexing to me because this is a time limited offer” says Cullen ” We can’t delay if we are to give Elections Canada enough time to actually use a new election system for the next time we go to the polls, so I’m starting to get a bit nervous.”
He’s hopeful the Minister in charge has now had some time to develop some ideas on a process that would work . But Cullen says he hasn’t heard much talk about the issue in Ottawa, “I continue to hear from other Canadians who are asking, where are we at, where are we going, and when are we going to get there?”
UBC Political Scientist David Moscrop has prepared a report entitled, An electoral system for all: Why Canada should adopt proportional representation . His report shows that under proportional representation, Canadians could see voter turnout increase by 5 to 7 percent. Based on voter turnout for the 2015 ballot, that kind of increase means there could have been about 1.5 million more votes cast.
There is growing support for change to the electoral system. Recently 24 leading organizations in the country have come together under the banner the “Every Voter Counts Alliance”. It is a coalition dedicated to seeing a new voting system implemented based on the principle of proportionality before the next federal ballot in 2019.
Comments
Proportional representation is the end of direct democracy and the gift that keeps giving for party insiders. I think it’s a bad idea in geographically diverse and widespread country like Canada. We need to retain the locally elected MP at all costs. If one is simply elected by a party list if they get 5% of the vote than it will fracture the voting into special interest dog barking politics with no accountability to the wider electorate. Rural communities will be hurt the most.
I prefer the preferential ballot where a locally elected and accountable candidates require a majority consensus to get elected for each riding and no free rides for party list reprentatives. All MP’s should have to work to get that majority consensus in their local ridings.
I believe this will open the door to the best candidates most in touch with Canadians and will open the door to electing independents with no party affiliation and small party consensus candidates therefor invigorating Canadian politics with fresh ideas and accountability for the parties towards the centre of the political spectrum. Trudeau has it right with PR IMO.
Political science types want proportional representation as it will give them an inside track to parliament by getting on one of the party lists. I think that gives them a bias in favour of a system that benefits the back room wannabe politician that doesn’t want to face the voter directly.
Ops should have said Trudeau has it right with the preferential ballot… 😉
“The government hasn’t really moved a muscle yet” says MP Nathan Cullen.
If the government would be working on the Electoral Reform thing at the expense of the multitude of more pressing issues it is working on you wouldn’t be pleased either, Nathan. Priorities, man!
The Trudeau government promised the last federal election would be the last time ‘first past the post’ would be the form for winning a ballot…
————–
Politicians make lots of promises. Is anyone really going to be surprised when they finally realize this government is no different from the previous governments?
People enter politics for one reason and one reason only, to line their pockets and the pockets of their friends.
Trump is in it because he is a narcissist.
so how would you explain lil’ ol’ Justin’s constant stream of selfies, his Vogue shoot, etc.?
Just a different lining for his pocket.
From the article come these words:
“’The government hasn’t really moved a muscle yet’ says MP Nathan Cullen.”
“The promise was to have a new system IN PLACE within 18 months FOLLOWING study and consultation with Canadians.”
In place means just that, in place by the time the next election is called. I presume that includes the time Elections Canada takes to have any new ballots printed (which cannot be done till the candidates are known – kinda like a last minute thing all by itself), instructions figured out, awareness programs in place to get Canucks ready for a new system.
Counting back 18 months from fall of 2019 takes it to spring of 2018. That would make it roughly 2 years from now. 2 years for consultation.
If Mr. Cullen is so antsy about this, we need to ask him what he has done so far about engaging the Canadians in his riding in a consultation process which he thinks would be reasonable for his riding. If he has not done anything yet, why is he waiting? There is no reason to wait.
There is no need to have a system all thought out. There is no need to start with a pre-judged system. Find out with a “blank sheet”, sort of like eagleone has already done.
Let’s see how interested and engaged Canadians in Mr. Cullen’s riding and others across the nation really are. Let us see how non-partisan Mr. Cullen and other MPs with various party affiliations can be.
We do not need a KPMG-like consultant to do that for us. MPs should be perfectly capable of spending some time to find out what their constituents think and want.
We need some leadership in local ridings. Get to it Mr. Cullen and show us what you can do instead of having someone else do it for you. Start the ball rolling. That is why you were elected. Your riding is counting on you!!
That’s one (more) election promise Trudeau should break. Leave the electoral system alone. Preferential ballots or proportional representation won’t do anything meaningful whatsoever towards increasing voter satisfaction with the results we’re going to get from government. These are ‘smoke and mirrors’ prescriptions designed to give people the impression they’re going to finally get what they want. All any of them will result in is a more unified chorus of diverse politicians still telling us the same old thing ~ “We know we promised to do this or that, and we would be doing it, too, only we haven’t got the money.” In other words, just whoever DOES have the money, or, more correctly, the keys to its creation, calls the shots. And in today’s modern world that sure isn’t us.
If you are for the present system then that is all the more reason for it to be changed. It is obvious that you think the present electoral system benefits your political interests the best. Since your interests are the protection of corporate interests and the super rich the reformation of a system based on “first past the post” needs to be changed.
I think you do “have the money” which is precisely why you are opposed to any changes in the present electoral system.
Hahahaha ha! If only!
@socredible
The fact that you have the word SOCRED in your username tells me everything I need to know about where you lie along the income strata line in this country and what benefits you the most politically.
I understand that the countries which have proportional representation include Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. Those are all countries which are smaller than most Canadian provinces and Territories.
Russia has a proportional representation system which is in the process of being changed to 50/50 with half by proportional representation and rest by direct election. I believe the intent is to transition back to the old system.
Read about the Swiss system here, a combination of proportional and direct election: democracy-building.info/particularities-switzerlands-proportional-election-system.html
The question we should be posing is who would have been placed into the seat in Ottawa to represent OUR two ridings had we had a proportional system? Would we have been more satisfied with the result? We need to learn to think locally on this question first, then provincially, then nationally. The answer may lie in involving the Senate chamber in electoral reform.
IMO, a preferential ballot system would work best for Canada. Think about it, mark ing your ballot for your first (preferred) choice and then marking it again for your second and third choice. Makes sense to me, and it would have the added benefit of making the Anything But Conservative (ABC) movement even more effective. :-)
I cannot understand why a system that can elect a second or third choice candidate would be called Preferential.
To me, I vote for one person. That is the person I prefer. I do not prefer a second or a third.
If the person I voted for does not get in, that is the luck of the draw.
In such a system, if the person I voted for did not get in, I would still go around afterwards uttering words such as: “she was really not my first choice. In fact, she was my third choice.”
Nothing has changed in the local riding with the level of satisfaction. In fact, there may be more dissatisfaction immediately after the election.
I agree jopg2016:) The only way it would work from my point of view is if I could vote for my first choice as second, third and forth choice as well. The numbers will change as those who know full well their #1 choice has absolutely no chance(read NDP,Green,Christian Heritage,etc) will change to something more realistic on subsequent choices. The winner will be the one who got the most overall votes be it 50%+1 or not.
Using a Borda Count in preferential balloting has worked well in other countries. A Modified Borda Count can even be used where proportional representation in important as well, so it can be adjusted and used effectively across different voting systems.
The Borda Count assigns numbers or values to places of choice on a ballot; first or preferred choice could receive 4 points, second choice would receive 3 points, third choice would have 2 points, and forth place would receive 1 point. The Candidate receiving the most points would be declared the winner, the Party with the most winning candidates would form government (often a minority government).
A preferential voting system, using the Borda Count, is more of a consensus based voting system rather than a majority system. I like consensus, and if a candidate / party happens to get elected who was my second choice, I can live with that.
How do you know it has worked well ibn other countries?
Please identify which countries and show me the evaluation system for each they have used afterwards to see the improvement in satisfaction of the people.
Our present system works just fine.
As usual there are many people who seem to have a need to take a system that works and fix it. There are 32 Countries around the world that use some version of the Westminster form of Government.
Had we had a system of proportional representation in the last election it would have looked like this.\\
Liberals 135, Conservatives 108, NDP 68, Bloc 17, Green 10. So you can see that the NDP would hold the balance of power by voting with the Liberals of Conservatives on any legislation. Under the first past the post it was.
Liberal 184 Conservatives 99 NDP 44 Bloc 10 Green 1.
So its pretty obvious why the **rump** parties would support PR. However the Liberals while having a majority of seats, would in effect have a coalition Government of some sort.
When it comes to election promises I doubt if the Liberals will live up to very many of them.
Remember the **Red Book**
My guess is that the Liberals will delay making any changes to how we vote, and then blame the other parties for the delay in getting a new system put in.
I am sure they have already convinced themselves that they will win the next election, so why do they need to change the system??
Electoral reform always sounds necessary until one actually wins under the current system. Oddly enough the desire to change falls off a little after that…
Why would anyone be happy with a voting / electoral system where a party that gets less than 50% of the popular vote gets to form a majority government? In the last election, the Liberals got only 39% of the popular vote, meaning 61% of voters (the majority) did NOT vote for them, yet they get to form a Majority Government??? The same can be said in previous federal elections where the Conservatives received way less than 50% of the popular vote, yet formed a majority government. It’s not fair!!!
Time to get rid of this archaic system and introduce one that more fairly reflects the will of a MAJORITY of voting Canadians!
When one has more than two parties running in the system, the chance of one party not getting the majority exists. The more parties run, and the more parties have a good following of people, the greater the chance is that party which wins the most seats will not have a majority.
It is as simple as that.
Therefore, perhaps the rule should be that parties should chose to create coalitions BEFORE the elections until there are no more than two groupings of coalitions. That way the parties who are of like mind figure out their platforms and put them in front of people at the time people get to make up their minds.
There are several countries who use a system such as that.
You’re dreaming in technicolor. There is no way that the MAJORITY of Canadian voters will ever get to decide the most important things to do with ‘policy’. Which are fundamentally ‘economic’. What they will get to decide is simply which ‘method’ will be used to impose upon them the SAME ‘policy’. It’s akin to giving an innocent man who’s been wrongly convicted his choice of execution ~ hanging, gas chamber, or lethal injection.
We really need to do it like the Americans. This thing of having 3 choices really suck. They all promise the world and we are stupid enough to fall for it. If we had about 10 candidates for each of the 3 parties, then we might have a proper democracy. You cannot have someone with no businesse experience run a country. You don’t pay $10.00 to earn $1.00.
It should be the other way around. Large severance packages are another flaw in the system. When a politician gets fired, he shouldn’t be receiving
large sums of money. How silly is that? We are on a crash course due to too
much spending and not enough working. Canada hasn’t a nickle to its name,
yet our politicians of the day are going to spend Billions. I’m really afraid for our grandchildren. Hey lets bring in another 25,000 refugees.
Seriously? The only good thing about the American system is that representatives don’t have to vote along party lines. They can vote against their party’s policy initiatives without fear of reprisal. Other than that, their system is a complete mess. The gridlock for any policy improvements outside of military appropriations is abysmal.
Also, last time I looked not everybody in this country was a businessman, so why should businessmen be the only ones eligible to run this country? The interests of businessmen do not align with the interests of the the majority people in this country. There is too much kowtowing to the interests of business in this country as it is. We don’t need any more of them in there bending public policy for their own interests. It shouldn’t always be about the bottom line when it comes to public policy. Most businessmen are so narrow minded that the only thing that matters to them is the bottom line dollar figure.
And businessmen can hardly be counted to eliminate large severance packages, since the managers of private businesses get some of the most obscene severance packages in history. Take for example the obscene amount of money that the CEO of Volkswagen got after he resigned, even though his actions massively damaged VW both in reputation and financially.
Well we could go to Proportional Representation . Then when the Bloc gets 75 seats they could hold the balance of power in the Government. This would allow them to negotiate all sorts of benefits for Quebec even if their long term plan would be to become a sovereign country.
In fact we could see a situation where the Greens, Bloc, and NDP basically control the Government and the Liberals and Conservatives would have to vote together to stay in Government.
I say leave the system that we have in place. Going to these other systems is merely an exercise by those who lost, to try and get a few scraps.
People who support the **rump** groups, could join the mainstream parties and through their membership bring about some of the changes that they are **harping** about. Problem is that would make them less important than representing a **rump** group.
I agree. That would make far more sense than having a plethora of basically ‘single issue’ Parties who then have to try to put together some kind of platform that goes beyond that single issue. When they do that, likely more often than not their own platform is going to be in contradiction to itself. Look at the Greens, for example. They’re out to save the environment, yet they still want to have full employment ~ “…let no one eat unless he (or she) has first worked.” How in the world are those two policies ever going to be compatible in any sane manner? Put everything back to an era where “all craft was handicraft”, and scarcity and famine did indeed stalk every land?
I think the danger of the Preferential ballot is parties like the NDP will Run NDP candidate #1 , Then NDP candidate #2 under the Banner of special interest party #1 then NDP candidate#3 for Special Interest Party #2 and form a Gov based on 3 Clones
Point taken Cornbinder, kind of like the Conservative / Reformers running under a BC Liberal Party Banner?
Like how you try to infer that the NDP is the only one that would use that tactic. Even if it were possible (and it wouldn’t be), those tactics could be used by any political party.
The danger of the proportional representation is that every David Duke racist with a following and every sharia fanatic with a following will be guaranteed a seat in parliament so long as they can scare up 5% of the electorate. Guys like that Crosby guy from Australia will have fertile ground to elect every nut job in the country with a narrow special interest that will divide the country and our parliament giving them a loud speaker to spew poison with the privilege of parliamentary protection.
We could end up like Israel where only the most extreme occupy the legislature and the whole idea of a moderate centrist majority will be under constant assault.
Where do you get 5% from? Switzerland has set it at 7%. We could set it at any rate.
BTW, the Trumps of this world would laugh at 5%. They get 30%+ votes from their party nomination participants.
Any idea how you are going to stop them?
Give it long enough od a change in the mood of a country and the inability of a government in power to alter that mood, and those types will rise to a very uncomfortable level. 5%, 7%, 20% is not going to stop them.
There are no guarantees when it comes to politics and the changing mood of the population.
Comments for this article are closed.