Why Electoral Reform Can’t Be Left to Canadian Politicians
Politicians, as everyone knows, are self-interested. Many get into politics for the wrong reasons. Others increasingly prioritize power to deliver on purpose and simply get lost along the way. If we all know this is true, why on earth would we ever believe a politician who campaigns on changing the political status quo will give them the keys to power?
The Electoral Reform Campaign
In 2015, Justin Trudeau led a Liberal Party that sat third place in the polls and a decade removed from power. The election that year would be the longest in Canadian history, dragged out over more days than the previous two campaigns combined. The media had already declared the Liberal Party dead and were focused on a horse race between the surging NDP and the tired governing Conservatives.
Trudeau broke through by making a bold pledge to ensure “the 2015 election will be the last federal election using first-past-the-post” (FPTP).
While we have no way of knowing how many people the pledge swayed, many voters have grumbled in the aftermath that they were duped by the leader of Canada’s so-called ‘natural governing party’.
After the election, now Prime Minister Trudeau launched an all-party special committee on electoral reform. It was quickly derailed by his own preference for a ranked ballot system (which would not necessarily require the scrapping of FPTP) and the preference of opposition parties to adopt a Proportional Representation (PR) system that might boost their own fortunes. The entire effort was quickly scrapped and the next election was once again conducted using Canada’s FPTP system.
When Politicians Govern Themselves
Most partisans are not the cartoons you see in TV shows like House of Cards. They get involved because they want to make their neighbourhoods, community, or country a better place to live. But even the most altruistic among them will eventually make a strategic calculation that, to do the most good, they may need to delay progress in order to access the levers of power that will make that progress possible.
In power, they will continue to make these strategic calculations about how much progress is possible without losing power. Nothing stirs up this kind of strategic thinking like electoral reform. Ask a partisan about their preferred system of voting and their answer will likely be the one that advantages their side the most. That’s because our voting system is the direct route to power for every political movement. Partisan bias will always slip in.
We’ve seen examples of this in the United States. ‘Gerrymandering’ is the term used when partisans have control over electoral boundaries and adjust them in ways that will favour their party’s chances in an election. Here are some examples of what that means in practice in the US:
In Canada we avoid this nonsense by leaving electoral district boundary changes to independent provincial/territorial commissions that use non-partisan guidelines to help arrive at these adjustments. Parliament then approves them together with an implementation date, beginning at least one year later and after Parliament has been dissolved. This gives election officials an opportunity to properly prepare for the change on the ground.
In Canada we also have an independent election organization called Elections Canada that monitors and conducts federal elections in Canada. Political parties must follow the rules set out by Elections Canada, ensuring an even playing field for all political parties and a final result that voters can trust to be accurate.
The latest element of our political system to get this crucial non-partisan treatment is our election debates. Ten years ago, when I used to be a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, I moved a motion within the youth wing of the party that called for the establishment of a federal debate commission. My goal was to ensure fair representation of political parties and issues during nationally televised political debates instead of leaving it up to the whims and biases of TV broadcasters.
The policy eventually made its way to a 2012 national convention where it was passed and became part of the Liberal Party of Canada’s 2015 election platform. The Leaders’ Debate Commission, as it is now known, was established in 2018 and put to work during the 2019 federal election. It is responsible for organizing every element of the leaders’ debates during an election campaign and “aims to make the debates a more predictable, reliable, and stable element of federal election campaigns”.
Debates help inform our decisions about who we elect to Parliament based on where they stand on day-to-day issues. 38 million Canadians can’t all serve in Parliament so we send politicians to stand in for us and make the best decision based on our values. But when it comes to how we elect those same politicians, it’s Canadians voters who should decide the rules.
Almost every element of our decision-making process about our political system is conducted on a non-partisan basis, beyond the grip of politicians. Our elections are conducted by an independent body, our electoral boundaries are determined by independent experts, and our election debates are delivered by an independent commission. For electoral reform to succeed, it must be delivered by an independent process, out of reach of partisan interests. A special select committee was always too small a vehicle for the overhaul of our entire electoral system.
Direct Voting through Referendums
Instead, any changes should be left up to us as Canadians citizens in a direct vote or referendum. Canada has a long history of direct votes on specific issues by voters.
Our first national referendum took place in 1898 and called for prohibition of alcohol. While it had the support of a majority of people who cast ballots, the government did not pursue the policy, citing low turnout. The next national direct-vote was on the issue of conscription during World War II. The vote was overwhelmingly in favour of forced conscription in every province except Quebec, where it failed by a large margin. This time the vote was honoured. The Charlottetown Accord, an attempt to overhaul our national constitution, was put directly to Canadians in 1992 but was rejected by 55% of voters.
The threshold for change via referendum is higher than in our FPTP voting system. To deliver change, a mere plurality of support will not be enough. Referendums require majority support — at least 50% + 1 vote — as the threshold for adoption of a proposal. Sometimes they even require what’s known as a ‘supermajority’ of 60% support to ensure a strong majority of voters support a proposal.
That was the case when British Columbia put forward a referendum in 2005 proposing a change to the voting system that would adopt a Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. The proposal received 57% support, failing to reach the supermajority threshold. Since majority support was still reached, the Premier called for a second referendum on STV in 2009. This time support for the change fell to 40%. British Columbians returned to the polls one more time in 2018 on a referendum question about switching to a PR voting system. This time just 39% supported the switch.
BC is not the only province to test the waters on PR. In 2005, Prince Edward Islanders were asked via referendum if they would support a switch to a mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) PR-style voting system over FPTP. Just 36% supported the change. The question was put to Islanders again in 2016 and this time 54% supported the change. However, the government opted not to follow their lead, putting forward the argument that voter turnout had been too low to responsibly make the change. A third referendum on MMP was held in 2019 and this time the proposal failed with a minority of 48% supporting change.
In 2007, Canada’s largest province, Ontario, conducted its own referendum on maintaining FPTP or switching to a MMP voting system. 63% of voters cast a ballot to maintain the status-quo. Unlike in BC and PEI, the issue has not been raised through additional referendums in Ontario.
A Referendum with a Two-Part Question
Do these failed attempts mean that referendums are unable to deliver electoral change? No, at least not if they are actually designed to ask a clearer question and deliver a clearer result.
Most of the time a referendum is put forward on electoral reform, the question is not whether people want to maintain the status quo or want to replace it, but whether they would like to replace it with ‘X’ — STV, MMP, or something else. In these cases, ‘no’ to ‘X’ suggests ‘yes’ to the status quo, even though that may not be the case. It’s entirely possible to want a change from the status quo without endorsing the only other option put up against it.
For a true sense of where people stand on the status quo, and any possible replacements, a two-stage referendum must be conducted (this is how the 2018 BC refendum was conducted). That’s what happened in New Zealand in 1992 when voters participated in a non-binding referendum that asked them two different questions. The first was whether they wanted to maintain the status quo of FPTP. 85% of voters cast their ballot in favour of replacing it. The second question asked them to select a replacement from four possible alternatives, of which they were only allowed to choose one. An overwhelming majority chose MMP.
This allowed for a second, binding referendum to take place during the 1993 election. In this referendum, armed with a clear alternative chosen by voters, the government put the question to the electorate again: FPTP or MMP? MMP received 54% of the vote from an informed electorate with a turnout of 83%. The new voting system was implemented and used for the first time in a general election in 1996. MMP was put to another referendum in 2011 as the now status-quo option. 56% of voters decided to retain the new system in a referendum with a turnout of 74%.
If Canadian voting reform advocates want to make progress toward their goal of replacing FPTP, they need to stop focusing on the broken promises of the past or which party stands to benefit most from the status quo or change. Electoral reform really isn’t about political parties or their advocates. It’s about every individual voter getting a real say.
To truly stand up for voters — all voters—would-be reformers must demand the process happen outside of political parties and Parliament, the question be put directly to voters, and to not presume their own preferred outcome by forcing a specific alternative onto the electorate without letting them first have their say. Then and only then may we see some tangible progress.
