On the question of electoral reform, Andrew Coyne is an optimist:
It is going to happen, eventually. Some day, somewhere in this country, at some level of government, the monopoly will be broken, and the debate will have changed forever.
The monopoly to which I refer is the system by which we elect members of Parliament, the provincial legislatures, and city councils: single-member*, plurality-wins voting, or as it is popularly known, “first past the post.” And not only them — mayors, school boards, the works. Canada is one of the few countries that still uses first past the post, but it is the only one that only uses first past the post, universally and exclusively.
There are places in the country where the way in which we vote is changing:
Ontario has passed legislation allowing the province’s municipalities, if they choose, to use ranked ballots for their elections: earlier this year, London became the first to take them up on it, while Kingston will hold a referendum on the idea in 2018. This isn’t proportional representation: it’s still one member per district, winner-take-all, rather than the sharing of representation among several members on which PR is based. But it’s something other than the status quo.
Prince Edward Island, meanwhile, voted in a 2016 referendum to switch from first past the post to a hybrid system known as mixed-member proportional. Turnout, however, was “only” 36 per cent — as high as for most municipal elections in this country — on the basis of which Premier Wade MacLauchlan has ordered a do-over, to coincide with the next provincial election in 2019.
And now British Columbia. Readers will recall that B.C., too, voted by a majority to switch to a form of PR (known as the single transferable vote, or STV) in the 2005 referendum: nearly 58 per cent, in fact, including a majority in 77 of the province’s 79 ridings. But the rules, unusually, stipulated a 60 per cent threshold. In the rematch four years later, the same proposal obtained just 39 per cent.
With the coming to power of the NDP, however, the issue is back on the table: both the NDP and the Green Party, on whose support it depends, had made proportional representation part of their election platforms.
The change will not come from the top -- as Justin Trudeau promised, and those of us who voted for him expected. But the change will come.
Image: bonuscut
14 comments:
It will be very interesting to see, Owen, how Trudeau dances around his betrayal of electoral reform now that Jagmeet Singh is starting to talk it up. Trudeau's sunny rhetoric will have to go into overdrive to counter this evolving situation.
Both Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau wanted to end FPTP when they were in opposition. But FPTP tends to unfairly reward election winners, so both scrapped reform after the system worked in their favour.
That's why I doubt any party in power would change the system that put them there. As you say, change must come from people demanding it and refusing to shut up.
Cap
Something tells me that Singh will give Trudeau a run for his money, Lorne. We'll get to see who is the real progressive.
I think you're right. Cap. Just a medicare started as a provincial initiative, electoral reform will begin in the provinces.
I wait anxiously to see if the BC NDP are any better at honouring their solemn promises than Trudeau has been. Horgan has to look at Weaver and know that, under PR, the Greens would be a more significant force. That's not just based on the last election results but a recognition that many votes the NDP garnered were from Greens who voted strategically. Under PR, with every vote counting, Green supporters would be less likely to succumb to the strategic vote trap. I think the Greens and whatever new parties emerged in the PR era would ensure that we would have no more 'tyranny of the majority' governments as we did under the BC Libs. That would be disruptive at first until the reality sank in that parties had to work cooperatively and in the public interest.
Opinons won't change until some jurisdiction puts a new system in place, Mound. When voters see how it actually works -- and when parties come to understand what kind of cooperation is required -- PR will seem like wold hat.
I voted against the proposed election changes in BC, Owen, because I did not like what STV appeared to represent (also it sounded like some vague venereal disease to me). My problem is that I do not want my voted moved to a different candidate that I did not vote for. Also, I'm not in favour of the party choosing some of the "winners" that would eventually be my rep even if they didn't run in my riding. Bottom line, all these alternatives to FPTP have not been explained very well at all, hence, the confusion and many wanting to stay with the voting procedure they understand (FPTP). Historically, in the 1952 election a coalition of Lib/Con failing government were so fearful the CCF would win, they implemented a new voting system (rank the 4 you like best) which resulted in the Social Credit (old Cons) from Alberta came to power and didn't even have a leader. WAC crossed the floor from the Cons, became the new Premier leading the Socreds and we never saw that electoral method used again. From what I understand, given my personal concerns, I would probably prefer a ranked ballot, but ONLY on the understanding that I could still vote for ONE candidate, but would never rank up to 4 candidates because you simply cannot know what the end result will be and that could be just as scary as FPTP.
I, too, prefer the ranked ballot, Lulymay. It's simple and it's easy to understand.
Judging Andrew Coynes responses I see no immediate change to the status quo.
We tend to become engrossed with what we would like to see changed particularly when it suggests Nirvana .
It ain't going to happen folks; Canada , and the rest of the world,prefer winners and losers!!!
TB
.. as the old saying goes.. ' I have no skin in the game'
I have approx ZERO trust in political parties, polls & parasitic political animals..
and mainstream media is too tainted to trust..
Here in Ontariario.. we have an election due at some point
and Kathleen Wynne will battle Patrick Brown..
and the political war rooms, strategists, liars & losers
will pimp their candidates in their respective ridings etc..
With no malice or aforthought whatsover
I burst out laughing on reading of the 'big tent'
war room mr Brown has somehow assembled..
What or whom ms Wynne has in her war room a mystery
But these political animals who manipulate
and manage elections for a living
and thrive in the troughs of the victors & the losers
will manipulate & manage - groom & goon elections
regardless of what 'system' is employed..
They will sniff the entrails of all the voter data
pump $$ to all the right Tv & media mavens
huddle with the really big donors (Big Energy)
mutter & rage in the back rooms
We end up with migratory partisan 'public servants' like Pierre Poilivre
or the bizarre reality of a Ray Novak.. ensconced on Sussex Dr
or gas plant scandals, the election fraud of 2011
or an 'Economy' anchored to dilbit for Asia
with arms manufacturing a 'key driver' - ugh !
or a weasel Minister of Environment OK'ing strychnine meat baits
airdropped on boreal forests to 'save the caribou'
The list is endless.. the failure rate mortifying
Our current system to a major extent rewards losers & cheaters
and we ensure they get gold plated pensions for being hysterical
for being ludicrous partisans.. and rewarding their 'handlers'
with endless consulting contracts or wondrous 'royal' appointments..
Fix the political party chokehold.. reduce the creep quotient
and any election system may suffice ..
I'm not so sure, TB. All three parties are now led by millenials. My sense is that they might be more willing to experiment than the baby boomers.
Good point, salamander. Any system can be corrupted -- once people know the rules. The solution, I suppose, is to put better people in office. But given humanity's default position -- to act in our own self interest -- that may simply be too much to hope for.
.. Owen, I use parasitic political thugs like Pierre Poilievre, Jenni Byrne, Rob Anders, Peter Kent, Ray Novak, Ken Boessenkool et al as examples because they're so obvious.. they are & were all point men or women for Stephen Harper's 'economic genius'.. and political manouvering.. the assault on Canada to benefit.. uh.. whom?
It happens all across Canada.. Christy Clark & the Gordon Campbell 'legacy' ? Alison Redford (holy hell !) Energy East? Lavalin bribery.. Rob Ford, and now our dear ex MP Jason Kenney.. spewing whatever works since the downfall of the Harper Machinery.. wild salmon being extirpated (which will take out all inter-related species..) and Harper & Trudeau think armoured tanks are either 'transports' or 'just jeeps' despite having turrets, cannon or missile launchers to be used on folks from Yemen.. who have no real idea why such hellfire is being directed upon them.
I look upon 'politics' as 'disease' now.. and do not think this is a stretch
One sees how Ray Novak or Stephen Lecce rose (were plucked) to ascendance
straight out of poli sci at U of Western Ontario..
or the bizarre ascendency of Jason Kenney, Jenni Byrne, Kouvalis, Soudas,
Alykhan Velshi, Candice Bergen, Ken Boessenkool..
as 'shakers or movers' .. blah blah Hamish Marshall, Arthur Hamilton.. whew !
Media calling them.. 'power players' etc
Disease requires treatment..
at the very least triage ..
and as required.. isolation
to prevent spread of contagion ...
ie Donald Trump..
And that's the rub, salamander. How do you isolate such people? Or -- what is perhaps more realistic -- how do you vaccinate the general public against the disease?
Post a Comment