This week, Justin Trudeau backed away from his promise to reform Canada's electoral system by the next election. There was -- rightly -- an explosion of criticism. By the end of the week, Trudeau was saying that his government is "deeply committed" to electoral reform. Alan Freeman writes:
Trudeau was rightly attacked from all sides for appearing to duck out of his election promise to reform the first-past-the-post system in time for the next election — and for the arrogance of the claim that his election alone was enough to deal with the issue once and for all.
Dropping an election pledge is nothing new. Freeman writes that lots of leaders have backed away from promises if they thought they could get away with it. George W. Bush, for instance, tried to privatize Social Security:
Bush launched a campaign to promote a dramatic reform that would allow Americans to set aside a portion of their Social Security and invest it themselves in private accounts. The ideological right and the investment industry, which had been pushing the idea for years, were thrilled. But voters, particularly older ones, were horrified when they realized that the change would simply impoverish the already-stretched Social Security system and risk the guaranteed benefits they depended on in return for the crapshoot of the stock market.
And Stephen Harper, with the support of Jim Flaherty, tried to harmonize the GST:
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was initially a big proponent of GST harmonization, throwing billions of dollars at Ontario and British Columbia when they decided to come on board with a harmonized sales tax. He embraced the view of leading economists and his own Finance Department — that a harmonized GST would lead to tax efficiency and remove the burden of provincial sales taxes from business.
But the moment grassroots opposition to harmonization started to build in British Columbia, Flaherty ran for cover. He never spoke about harmonization again. At the Finance Department, where I was working at the time, the order came down that the department was not to answer any questions about the issue — to act as if it didn’t exist. In the end, B.C.’s harmonization effort died and the province refunded the big grant it had been given to go ahead with harmonization. Flaherty and Harper had dodged a bullet and spent not a cent of political capital doing it — but an opportunity to change tax policy for the better was lost.
Electoral reform is a bullet Trudeau can't dodge. If he takes that tack, he will not make it through the next election -- even if it occurs under the First Past The Post system.
Image: CBC
16 comments:
Personally, Owen, I believe we should, as a first step, embrace a ranked ballot system, so people can get used to electoral reform. Simple to understand, it would likely lead to increased voter participation, as no vote is really 'thrown away' under such a system. While it is not proportional representation, to me it represents a step in the right direction, and is hardly the revolution that the Conservatives say would require a national referendum.
I agree wholeheartedly, Lorne. A ranked ballot is doable. There may be more reforms to come incrementally. But the status quo cannot be allowed to stand.
Add another vote for Ranked Ballot to start here guys. Lets wait and see if the committee can come up with a consensus, which given the Cons stand on a referendum is at this point a long way from probable, before slagging the Libs for 'backing away. Its when there is no agreement that the manure will hit the fan and it could get very divisive. I hope not but its entirely too possible.
Yes, ranked ballots for now. The electoral reform committee is going to be deadlocked. That means Trudeau will have to take leadership on the issue and break the deadlock. He can do a minor reform like ranked ballots. Or he can do nothing, break his promise and side with the Conservatives.
Most of the experts testifying at the committee say we need to adopt PR. It's the most popular voting system in the world. But unfortunate political realities make it too radical a change at this point in time.
Trudeau is going to take a lot of flak no matter what he does. The perpetual-government rhetoric has been debunked. Ranked ballots is a simple compromise that would accomplish quite a lot: ends vote splitting and the need for strategic voting; ensures MPs have earned the right to represent constituents; punishes polarizing politics; reduces regional distortions; would typically force two parties to work together in government bringing compromise, checks and balances. Proportionality can be tackled next.
I agree, Anon. All progress is incremental. And a ranked ballot is progress.
Like pricing carbon, Rural, Trudeau's going to have to act above someone's objections.
Do either of you guys know what happened to that oil tanker moratorium we were supposed to be getting out here, the one in that mandate letter Trudeau issued to Garneau? Just askin'
Trudeau wants electoral change if it is to a Ranked Ballot - Liberals will virtually always win. Most proponents of change recommend a Mixed-Member Proportional system (like Germany or Sweden) - which would most closely match the "will of the people".
There is some disagreement about whether Trudeau would win with a ranked ballot, UU4007. But, as other commenters have suggested, it's only the beginning. The legislation should have a renewal date and changes can be made after that date. Electoral reform is going to have to be more than a one step process.
Good question, Mound. It seems to have fallen off the radar.
Wouldn't it be terrific to have all those mandate letters, bound in a lovely commemorative binder, with a calligraphic "Trudeau's Greatest Hits" for a title. Then we could flip through it, page by page, and wistfully dream of what might have been.
I'm sure lots of people are keeping score, Mound. Luckily, the promises can't be put down the Memory Hole.
You could print'em and bind 'em yourself I guess.
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/mandate-letters
Thanks, Dana. We can all keep score.
"Trudeau wants electoral change if it is to a Ranked Ballot - Liberals will virtually always win."
This rhetoric has been debunked. Australia and France have runoff voting. Check out their election history. No single party rule. Both countries have typical center-left/conservative pendulum swings.
Simulations that show the Liberals winning bigger on rank ballots in 2015 are based on junk statistics. They assume those who voted Liberal would've ranked them #1 on their ranked ballot which is clearly absurd.
Fact is the NDP likely would've won the election under ranked ballots. Fear-driven strategic voters switched to Trudeau halfway through the campaign because he was a safer choice in stopping Harper. With ranked ballots, voters can safely vote #1 NDP, #2 Liberal without worry the Cons will win from vote splitting.
There is a lot of evidence from a lot of places about voting systems which do not operate on the FPTP system. You're right, Anon. If we change the system, we will not be taking a blind leap into the unknown.
Post a Comment