|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Voters Beware - Manipulating the Voting System
For the past several years Canadians have
been told that our electoral system, based on the British
system of first-past-the-post, which means that the party
receiving the most votes forms the government, is supposedly
a dud. Invariably, it is pointed out that in the 1997 federal
election, Liberal leader Jean Chrétien won a majority
of seats with only 37 percent of the popular vote. The present
system, it is argued, has led to such horrors as women making
up only 21 percent of the elected MPs in the federal Parliament
(as though women were idiotic enough to care how many MPs
were female, as female voters sensibly look, as do men, to
the candidates' policies rather than their gender). In Ontario,
Conservative leader Mike Harris's election win in 1995, with
50 percent of the seats, occurred with only 40 percent of
the popular vote. It is also argued that our present system
is causing a decline in voter turnout at elections. Obviously,
in view of these developments, reformers argue that a way
has to be found to get around these perceived problems.
To solve these problems, it is being argued
that another electoral system, called proportional representation
(PR), or some variation of this system, should replace the
present first-past-the post electoral system.
Before defining PR, it would perhaps be a
good idea to first look at who is behind this new (for Canada)
PR voting system. The advocacy group pushing for it is called
Fair Vote Canada, which claims to be a non-partisan organization.
One of its founders is feminist Doris Anderson, former editor
of Chatelaine magazine. There are 32 members on its advisory
board, chaired by former left wing Liberal cabinet minister,
Lloyd Axworthy, who, when he was in office, was nicknamed
"Pink Lloyd" for a very good reason. Other left
wing members on the advisory board include:
Dr. Patricia Baird
Former chair of the Royal Commission on Reproductive Technology.
The Commission made 293 recommendations including those
in favour of the creation of embryos specifically for research
(on human embryos of up to 14 days), and of lesbians and
single women having the right to new medical technologies
paid for by provincial health schemes.
Maude Barlow
Feminist Chairperson of the left wing Council of Canadians.
Dr. Sylvia Bashevkin
Feminist Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto.
She has written a number of books dealing with women and
party politics.
Patrick Boyer
Former red Tory Toronto MP. He chaired the House of Commons
Equality Committee dealing with the implementation of the
Charter of Rights. His Committee's report, released in October
1985, made 85 recommendations, including protection for
sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act, employment and
pay equity, and that appointments to the judiciary should
reflect the composition of Canadian society ie. appointments
be made on the basis of gender, ethnic, origin, race, etc.
The Hon. Ed Broadbent
NDP MP and party leader from 1975 - 1989.
June Callwood
Feminist author and vice president of the Canadian Civil
Liberties Association.
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Past President of the Law Commission of Canada, who led
that Commission's electoral reform project which recommended
adoption of PR. While President of the Law Commission, she
issued a report that same-sex marriage be legalized and/or
marriage be eliminated entirely. Legalization of abortion
and euthanasia were also recommendations made by this commission.
Linda Silver Dranoff
Feminist lawyer and legal reformer who has contributed to
the expansion of women's rights in family law. She wrote
a column in Chatelaine for 25 years, interpreting the law
from a feminist perspective.
Dr. Margaret Fulton
Former president of Mount St. Vincent University, which,
under her direction, changed from a Catholic women's university
to a feminist only university. She is director of the North/South
Institute, a left-wing organization working internationally.
Mel Hurtig
Left-wing publisher. He is the founding member of the Committee
for an Independent Canada and one of the founding members
of the Council of Canadians.
Tom Kent
Former advisor to Prime Minister Lester Pearson who comes
from a socialist background in Britain.
Robin Mathews
An active member of the extreme left wing of the NDP called
the Waffle Movement.
The Hon. Lorne Nystrom
Former NDP Member of Parliament who ran for the NDP national
leadership in 1975 and 1995. He was NDP House leader until
defeated in the 2004 election.
Dr. Sylvia Ostry
Left-leaning feminist, former Chief Statistician for the
federal Liberal government and Chairperson of the Economic
Council of Canada.
William Pitman
NDP MP and Ontario MPP, who also served as Deputy Leader
of the Ontario NDP party. Former President of the Canadian
Civil Liberties Association.
Judy Rebick
Former President of the feminist National Action Committee
on the Status of Women (NAC) and former Ontario provincial
NDP candidate.
Rick Salutin
Left-wing columnist for the Globe and Mail. He is editor
of the leftist publication, This Magazine.
David Suzuki
Well-known CBC broadcaster on the environment and other
similar causes.
The Very Rev. Hon. Lois Wilson
High profile feminist former Moderator of the United Church
of Canada. She is a Board member of Amnesty International
and currently president of the World Federalist Movement
(Canada); Vice President of the World Federalist Movement
(International); and Vice President of the Canadian Civil
Liberties Association.
At least 60 percent of the Board is comprised
of left wing activists, with a heavy emphasis on NDP supporters
and/or feminists. Obviously, there is something in PR that
they believe serves their cause.
It should be mentioned, however, there are
three known conservative members on the Advisory Board. They
are Walter Robinson, former director of the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation, Ted White, former Alliance MP for North Vancouver,
between 1993 and 2000, and red Tory Senator Hugh Segal, former
Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Mulroney. The political leanings
of the remaining members of the Board are not known.
It is significant that Fair Vote Canada has
organized a caucus called "Women for Fair Voting"
which focuses on promoting PR as a means of increasing the
number and percentage of women serving in Parliament and provincial
legislatures. Fair Vote Canada notes, on its website, that
a number of studies have shown that the lists used in all
PR systems help facilitate both the nomination and election
of more women than first-past-the-post systems.
What is PR?
PR is a system of voting whereby a party lists
its candidates in a certain order and then if 10 percent of
the seats in a 100-seat legislature, for example, are won
by the party, the top 10 names on the list then sit in the
legislature. Note - there are no nomination meetings as the
party chooses the candidates whose name will stand for election.
Understandably, there will be immense political pressure for
parties to create lists that include an equal number of women
ie. a female quota, and quotas based on racial and ethnic
origin and sexual orientation. Quotas for women are currently
included in the election laws of Costa Rica, Belgium, Mexico
and France. We know that this type of electoral system is
especially important for feminists, based on their international
conference on the issue held in Ottawa in June 2004. According
to this conference, changing to a new political system on
constitutional reform would provide a "golden opportunity
to try to tie in gender parity." (See Reality, January/February,
2005, p. 14, "Voting By Proportional Representation:
Who Benefits?")
This system also raises other questions, such
as the difficulty of balancing regional interests in PR. That
is, how would northern or western regions, for example, be
certain of getting their fair share of the seats if the names
of candidates are selected by the party. These individuals
could come from anywhere in Canada. The guarantees of regional
representation and that local issues will be raised in an
election campaign are a benefit of our first past-the-post
system. This is an important consideration. In fact, under
PR, just what would be the point of having local candidates
anyway? There is, however, a way around this problem of PR
in that candidates could run in individual ridings, as they
do under the present system, and that only some of the seats
would be reserved and awarded to parties accordingly to their
lists.
Another problem with PR is that the system
rarely leads to majority governments since it gives smaller
parties a far greater degree of representation in a national
Parliament. That is why the NDP is such an enthusiastic supporter
of PR. PR guarantees that the winning party must make a deal
with other parties to stay in power. Although it seems more
democratic, the system, in fact, gives small parties more
power, even if they are supported by only tiny pockets of
Canadians, e.g., the Green Party and the NDP, each of which
according to a Decima poll in late February, have the support
of only 13% of the population. This could lead to the second
most popular party in an election having no role to play at
all. We only have to look to the fiasco that occurred in Germany
in its federal election in 2005. Deal-making among the fractured
parties took weeks to arrange. In the end, an ugly "Grand
Coalition" of Germany's two leading parties, hated rivals,
was the bizarre outcome. The Chancellor is a Conservative
while the finance and foreign ministers are Socialists. Under
PR, we could just as easily have Stephen Harper as Prime Minister,
Jack Layton as Finance Minister, and Paul Martin as Minister
of Foreign Affairs. Policy decisions would not come easily
under such a configuration! Under our present system the party
with the most votes can draw support from different parties
on different issues, but under the PR system, the coalitions
are formal, requiring prior compromises before the government
is formed, which can result in an incoherent power sharing.
There is little doubt that the PR system leads
to political instability. For example,
- Israel's mainstream parties have to make
deals with radical and religious parties in order to create
a coalition government, thus giving these very small parties
power they may not deserve.
- Italy's 61st government since World War
II fell in February because its coalition fell apart. Its
deposed socialist Prime Minister Romano Prodi negotiated
with members of the other parties to reach a "deal"
to return him as head of the government. That is, horse-trading
over issues took place in order to form a government. Mr.
Prodi was successful in restoring his position, but he paid
a stiff price to do so as he had to change direction on
almost all the political initiatives undertaken in his first
months in office.
On the other hand, it must be said that some
social conservatives see considerable value in PR, as it is
a way to get issues, such as abortion and same sex marriage,
back on the floor of Parliament where there is currently an
all-party consensus against revisiting these matters. Since
MPs under PR are to be selected according to a party list,
the candidates must, of course, agree to the party's position
on controversial issues. Thus, there is no guarantee that
the issues of abortion, same sex marriage and euthanasia etc.
would receive any more support under PR than under the first-past-the-post
system. It is, in short, a very tricky call.
Attempts to Bring in PR
Even though the PR electoral system may create
difficulties, this does not mean it is not being seriously
entertained in Canada. Paul Martin, when Prime Minister, made
a half-hearted stab at electoral reform when he asked, in
2005, that his minister Responsible for Democratic Reform,
Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier) look into the issue.
However, there was not much enthusiasm by the Liberals for
electoral reform since reform would likely interfere with
the accustomed and expected Liberal victory at the polls.
As a result, the federal government decided to wait for the
provinces to break the ice before deciding whether it wanted
to test the waters on an alternative electoral system.
Provincial Reviews of the Electoral System
The provinces of British Columbia, Ontario,
Quebec, New Brunswick and P.E.I. are at various stages in
considering electoral change. British Columbia advanced the
most quickly in establishing a Citizens Assembly, when 160
randomly selected individuals were selected by the government
to examine the issue. In late 2004, the assembly came up with
a rather exotic form of PR system called the Single Transferable
Vote ("STV"). It is so complicated that even such
a seasoned politician and newspaper columnist as Norman Spector
(former Chief of Staff for Prime Minister Mulroney), now a
Globe and Mail columnist, in his column on January 10, 2005
dismissed STV as "nonsense". A referendum was held
on the STV in the 2005 British Columbia provincial election,
and was supported by a surprising 57 percent of the voters,
although this does not necessarily mean the voters understood
the system. This, however, was short of the 60 percent required
to have the referendum passed. British Columbia Premier Gordon
Campbell now says there will be another referendum held on
STV at the time of the 2009 provincial election.
In November 2004, Ontario randomly selected
103 individuals (one per riding in the province) to deliberate
on proposals for electoral reform there. The assembly is advised
by a 13-person panel of experts who, with only one or two
exceptions, reads like a who's who of advocates for PR. The
results of the assembly's deliberations are to be announced
on May 15, 2007 and a referendum is to be held on its recommendations,
coincident with the October 2007 Ontario provincial election.
The Ontario government also requires a super majority 60 percent
for the measures to be approved.
A Solution to the Problem
There is no doubt that the present first past-the-post
electoral system is flawed. As Britain's Winston Churchill
once stated, "the best argument against democracy is
a five minute conversation with the average voter." A
variation of this occurred when the elitist Liberal party
leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff (National Post, February
24, 2007) described, as "moments of torture," his
inability to watch the World Cup Soccer game, because he had
to endure those "… hilarious meetings with people
in bars - I mean serious meetings with potential supporters
…" Obviously he doesn't have a very high opinion
of ordinary people, or perhaps it's just that he has a very
high opinion of himself.
This brings us to the real problem with our
electoral system. It's not the process, but rather the arrogance
of those in power, i.e., a long series of Prime Ministers
and their staff who invariably centralize power into their
own hands. Even Cabinet ministers are nothing more than yes-men.
Individual MPs have no strong role to play in the development
of policies and MPs do not represent their constituents because
their vote is most often "whipped" ie., ordered
by the leader to vote a certain way, with failure to comply
leading to negative consequences for that MP. More free votes,
relaxed party discipline and a strong role for caucus in determining
policy are all necessary in order to make Canada more democratic.
Once we finally have a genuinely democratic government, only
then should we consider looking at changes in the electoral
system.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
