Since last Tuesday's election Electoral Reform has been the hottest topic in the country. there are discussions about it everywhere you turn. Still, some people have real problems with the idea of proportional representation. Many are concerned that it would lead to a parliament filled with tiny parties who's power in a coalition would vastly outweigh their popular support. Still others don't like the idea of losing their local MP, they want someone to call with local problems. Having given this considerable thought over the last few years I think I have a solution to the problem that no one will love, but everyone will be able to live with and, in a democracy, that's usually a good sign. The system I propose is actually a combination of first past the post, preferential balloting and proportional representation. It also adds 100 new Members of Parliament (I can hear the groaning already - but democracy is important and it's worth it.)
Before I get to the voting system I'm suggesting I'd like to point out a few other changes I think are needed to make our democracy work outside of the voting system.
The Plan
It's election weekend, you head down to your local polling station to vote. It works the same as it always has, even the ballot is the same.
The first thing that has changed is you no longer put an X in the box next to your candidates name, you put a "1". Under this new system the need for 'Strategic Voting' is gone so choose the party you really, really like - what is most important in this election is which party gets that "1".
Now, having done that you pick the candidate who you would vote for if you couldn't have your first choice and you put a "2", then you pick the candidate (if any) you like best after that and put a "3".
You're done. That's all you need to do, the rest is vote vote counters.
Counting the Votes
In each riding the ballots are counted, initially they just look at the "1" and come up with a total for votes. If none of the candidates has 50%+1 of the votes, they set this original number aside (because it's important again later). The vote counters now take the top two from the first count, and go back to the ballots for other candidates. For ballots where the "1" vote was for a candidate outside the top 2, they count the "2" votes then re-total the numbers. If one of the top two candidates now has 50% + 1 of the votes they are declared the winner. If they do not have a majority though the vote counters once again return to the ballots. Looking at only the ballots where neither of the two top contenders was "1" or "2" they now count the threes. The candidate who is ahead at this point (50% or not) is declared the winner. That person is the candidate that most of the voters in the riding at least found acceptable, even if he or she wasn't their first choice.
Now that that's done the totals from that first ballot are brought back out. The "1" votes are the ones that will determine Federal funding for parties, they will also, in part, determine the proportional seats. I say in part because there are more votes to add here. While voters 18+ were voting for their local MP, High School students were also voting. In an effort to empower them and get them in the habit of voting they were casting 'party only' ballots - that is they were voting for which of the federal parties they liked the best. These votes are added to the "1" votes nationwide and a total emerges.
Let's pretend that the numbers were like last tuesdays vote totals:
Conservative 37.63%
Liberal 26.24%
NDP 18.2%
BQ 9.97%
Green 6.8%
The proportional seats are awarded based on percentage of the vote 1 seat per 1% rounded up (but a party would have to receive at least 1% to get a seat). So the Conservatives would receive an additional 38 members, the Liberals 26, the NDP 18, the Bloc 10 and the Greens 7. These 'at large' members would be appointed by the party and could be used to return members not elected to parliament, to fill gaps in representation (regional, minority etc), to fill gaps in expertise or to bring in those 'star candidates' I mentioned.
This is not, as I said, a perfect system. It doesn't give everyone what they want, but it does answer everyone's concerns - it insures that parties with public support get a voice in parliament, it provides an opportunity for minority voters (Conservatives in Toronto, Liberals in Red Deer etc) to be represented in party caucus', but at the same time it does not give undue power to small extreme parties and it allows people to retain local, riding level, representation in parliament.
2 comments:
Justin;
Glad to see you're getting engaged with this issue! Designing your own voting system is a step on the road to manhood.
There is no shortage of good voting system models, including those in use in 80 countries around the world that find they achieve greater voter satisfaction with proportional representation.
Here are two voting system models designed for Canadian provinces, that have the additional cachet of having been designed by independent citizens' assemblies that took considerable time to learn about voting systems around the world, discuss the matter among themselves, and design a system that was right for their time and place:
Ontario Citizens
Assembly on Electoral Reform
BC Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
And here is one for all of Canada, that resulted from a two-year study by an independent federal agency:
Law Commission of Canada Final Report on Electoral Reform
The barrier to electoral reform in Canada is not a lack of models. Instead, the problems are these:
1. Ignorance
Although there has been an explosion of interest lately, most Canadians still do not know,
a) Our current voting system is not working.
b) There are better ways to vote.
2. Entrenched power
We are talking about giving power to voters. That means taking it away from those who have it now. They will not give it up without a fight. Our attempts to educate Canadians (see 1. above) are met with a barrage of self-serving misinformation (Oh hell, lets just call it lies.) such as:
a) PR will take away your local representation.
b) PR will give more power to political party bosses.
c) PR will mean unelected and unaccountable MPs will be appointed to Parliament.
d) PR will result in a wave of tiny extremist parties that will have inordinate influence.
e) PR will result in unstable, ineffective government, with 3 elections per year.
f) PR will cause hair loss and erectile dysfunction.
This is where the battle is being fought, and I look forward to your help in winning it.
Good discussion.
Adding 100 MPs could answer many concerns. However, you need to spell out your model a bit. If you want Conservatives in Toronto, and Liberals in Alberta, to get a voice in parliament and to be represented in party caucus, those 100 must each come from a province, like nine from Alberta. Now, when the Conservatives already won 27 of Alberta's 28 seats, they really don't need additional parallel MPs, so those nine would go to the under-represented parties. That would be three Liberals, three New Democrats, and three Greens.
So who names those people? If you don't want to give too much power to party leaders, use a regional open list. Voters have two votes: one for their local MP, another for their regional MP, so you can vote for your party's regional candidate you prefer most. In Alberta I guess the "region" is half the province or the whole province, but in Ontario I guess the "region" might be Toronto or the GTA.
This is much like the model suggested by long-time Liberal guru Tom Kent.
But Wayne Smith is right: there are lots of good models available. The secret is to get people to understand there are better ways, without getting confused by anti-democratic lies.
Post a Comment