I first became convinced that our electoral system was fatally flawed on the morning of October 26, 1993. I woke up post-election to discover that the Bloc Québécois was the official opposition even though it had less than 14% of the popular vote and had only run candidates in a single province, while the Progressive Conservative Party was reduced to two elected MPs in spite of winning over 16% of the popular vote. I decided, then and there, that a system that so distorts the public will and rewards parties focused on narrow regional interests above parties that seek a national mandate was not very "democratic" as I envisioned democracy at the time.
That belief has been reinforced by living in PEI, where there are the two dominant parties and we often end up with a mega-majority in the legislature based on a very small variation in the popular vote, and where district races can be so close that we currently have a cabinet minister who was elected by coin-toss. Clearly other Islanders share my concerns, as the majority who voted in a recent plebiscite favoured a proportional representative system. The current government (which was elected with only 40.83% of the popular vote) has chosen not to honour the plebiscite.
I should also disclose that I work for the Green Party legislative office in PEI, and the party's position is in favour of eliminating first-past-the-post. Therefore I must preface my review with the following disclaimer: I have a long established position on this question and my ability to honourably continue my current employment is somewhat contingent on me maintaining that position. But enough about me....
Should We Change How We Vote? is a collection of papers from two conferences held in the fall of 2016: one in Ottawa on October 28 and the other in Montreal on November 1. The dates are important as the papers were written when Justin Trudeau had begun consultations on his intention to act on his election promise that the 2015 election would be the last one to be run on first-past-the-post. Since then, Trudeau has indicated that his government won't be changing the electoral system, so the urgency of the discussion has dissipated.
Although written almost entirely by academics, the articles are, for the most part, quite accessible to a non-academic reader. Yet, you still occasionally find yourself slogging through sentences like this: "The kind of epistemically fine-tuned vote that systems of ranked ballots allow must of course be calibrated to the epistemic carrying capacity of the electorate." I'm not entirely sure what is being said, but I feel vaguely insulted as a voter.
The volume covers a range of topics from an overview of past electoral reform attempts in Canada to the various values that must be considered in any decision, how change would impact the function and motivation of parties, the potential impact on underrepresented groups such as women, Indigenous people and visible minorities, and what is a legitimate process to implement change.
Each contributor brings his or her own perspective to the discussion, but it seemed that there was an overall preference for maintaining the status quo. I wonder if this preference was in anyway reinforced by the fact that the federal government, at the time, seemed committed to change. In some of the essays one could almost sense anxiety around the possibility of Canada moving to a more proportional system. Many of the contributors seemed to take the position that the problems with our current system are simply not severe enough to risk the potential unintended consequences of change.
I found some of the arguments less than inspirational and even somewhat circular. For example, in the paper "Voter Choice and Accountability," Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant argues that the "mandate view on representation suggests that ballots cast for parties provide affirmation of their electoral platform as legislative blueprints for governing," (p.58) and the necessary post-election coalition bargaining makes it difficult for voters to know in advance which elements of a platform might be up for barter. Although this is quite true, she fails to provide an argument on why two or more parties representing the majority of the voters working together to support policy they can both agree on has a less legitimate mandate than a single party with under 40% of the popular vote imposing its platform on the majority who did not vote for it. For example I do not believe, based on his 39.47% popular vote, Trudeau had a clear mandate to impose a new electoral system. However, if he worked with and was supported by other parties such as the NDP, Greens etc, who combined would represent the majority of voters that carries greater legitimacy.
I also discovered to my surprise that many contributors cited features of our current system as advantages, that I actually consider disadvantages. For example, one of the primary advantages cited for first-past-the-post is its stability and efficiency. Admittedly minority and coalition governments can be somewhat unruly, but I believe that true democracy should be a little a messy. It should involve vigorous debate, collaboration and compromise. With the current granting of false-majorities to parties that obtain approximately 40% of the vote, we have created a system where important decisions are being made at the Cabinet table in secrecy, facile speaking points are then drafted to justify the decision and government ministers avoid any substantive debate on the issue because they know in the end their legislative majority will rule the day. Within a less "stable" system, governing parties would need to work more closely with other parties in developing policies, justify their decisions with rational debate and evidence, and show greater respect and decorum towards opposing members. What is the value of stability if it comes at the price of omnibus bills, time allocations and other strong-arm tactics used to limit debate?
Although I did not agree with all the opinions expressed, every single paper provided excellent insights into the question and greatly deepened my understanding of the issues and the arguments to made on both sides. Although clearly not recommended for all, I believe the policy wonks in my circle would find this an invaluable resource, especially here on PEI where we are still at an impasse on how to move forward from last year's plebiscite.
Three and a half smileys out of five. 😀😀😀😶
No comments:
Post a Comment