Electoral Reform: Proportional
Representation: A better way
Some may remember the last Ontario election…you know – the one that didn't cost 350.5 mil?
We voted on a referendum, which would have provided us with what is generally
called "proportional representation".
The true results of the 350
million dollar federal fiasco show quite clearly that many people, who ought to have
been represented in Parliament to speak for their constituents are now completely
shut out.
Conservative
voters, for example, have no voice in Toronto. Why? Because we haven’t yet
developed a system that provides for fair representation. Conservatives ought
to have taken more seats there and also in Montreal. 250,000 Conservative
voters cast ballots for candidates in Toronto and yet they elected no one to
speak for them. We have an excellent electoral system- fair and
accurate – but
because the old parties want it to be based on an out-dated system known as "first-past-the-post",
millions of people in the country are not represented. They are mute in
Parliament and that's tragic. Let's take a look at what proportional
representation would have done for the other parties and for Canada.
The Green
Party received almost a million votes. And yet all those hundreds of thousands
of citizens wasted their precious ballots. They don't have a single
representative in Parliament to speak for them. Not one. Under proportional
representation, the Greens would have about 18 seats. And here's a comparison:
813,000 Conservatives in the Prairie Provinces were able to elect 27 M.P.'s.
Fair or unfair?
Our
antiquated method of voting also punished Liberals and New Democrats in the
prairies. Conservatives in the Prairie Provinces cast about twice as many votes
as Liberals and New Democrats, but took about 7 times as many seats. That result
doesn’t seem fair to those who took the time to vote.
The New
Democrats attracted 1.1 million more votes than the Bloc Quebecois, but our
voting system gave the Bloc 50 seats in parliament and the NDP only 37. Somehow
it doesn’t seem right. It's important to remember that the Conservatives have
been able to form a government with less than 38% of the votes cast. Under
proportional representation, they would have received about 117 seats, not the
143 they got. That would have given those citizens who voted for other parties
a bit more say in how the country is governed. Surely that’s what democracy is
all about. Everyone gets represented. British Columbia will try for it next election.
Here's what would have happened in the latest Federal Vote:
- The Liberals received 26% of the popular
vote and under proportional representation would have received about 81 seats,
not 76. - The New Democrats received 18% of the
popular vote and under proportional representation would have got 57
seats, not 37. - The Bloc got a piddling 10% of the
national popular vote and under proportional representation that would
have given them 28 seats, NOT 50. - The Greens received a bit more that 7% of
the popular vote, which would have given them 18-20 seats, not 0 - The Conservatives form a government with only 36.7%!!
Think about
how different our Parliament would look if we had proportional representation.
117; Liberals 81; New Democrats 57; Bloc 28; Greens 22. Liberals and
Conservatives could form a government together and we would surely have a more
representative government. Liberals, New Democrats and Greens could do it
together, with the same broadly representative result. Clearly, the vast majority of Canadians
rejected the Conservatives, so that too would be fair.
This column
is based on the research of a group called Fair Vote Canada. “With a different
voting system, people would also have voted differently,” said Larry Gordon,
Executive Director of Fair Vote Canada. “There would have been no need for
strategic voting. We would likely have seen higher voter turnout. We would have
had different candidates – more women, and more diversity of all kinds.
Find out
more by visiting, http://www.fairvote.ca/ you can email Jim at jimreed@rogers.com
Jim;
Thank you for this timely article!
The main obstacle to electoral reform in Canada is that most Canadians still don’t know there are other, better ways to vote.
They don’t realize how much of the frustration and anger we feel towards politics and politicians is caused by the fact that we don’t get the government we voted for, because of our antique voting system.
Thanks for the comment Wayne…we need lots of education and information…keep up the great work!
I found by looking through a different lens that all is well in Canada. Our cautious endorsement of the status quo is exactly what we are all about.
There is now a conservative minority government. And in effect, a liberal minority government. And a NDP one, etc.
They all have the power to cleverly demolish each other at the drop of a writ, to say nothing of the obvious loaded guns of Greens, Blocists and independents. They are all well aware of each other, sitting members or not.
This will keep Harper if not honest, at least on a choke-chain.
I can’t say I understand all the handwringing about unrepresented “orphan-voters”. This emotional description always comes ahead of yet another plea for proportional representation, an intrigue-oozing ploy so far, designed only by
politicians because they are the only ones with the power to do so, at least until the
oxymoronic Canadian Revolution.
Canadians seizing power? What nonsense. We already have.
Could it be said that Canadian voters lived up to their left-liberal history by putting in yet another minority government? If, as many (including me) think, the Harper Cons have a hidden agenda far too close to the base of the disgraced George W. Bush administration in USA, Canadians chose the right path.
I will now put myself right out on a limb. I think systems of governance at all levels in this country serve Canadians well. It’s why people are lined up at Canadian embassies around the world with papers in their hand and hope in their hearts to be included in this cesspool of undemocracy we call home. I consider it an egregious opinion that a sitting member would not strive to fully represent the interest of any Canadian or Landed Immigrant because of their race, religion, gender blah blah blah.
It is of course another question altogether as to why this election was deemed necessary.
Its sanction by our Governor-General earns her Office even more discredit. And why
would the other major parties agree with Harper’s ploy (and broken promise) to call an election as he did? Why didn’t they go and pay her a visit too?
It’s all over now, other than taxpayers being forced to spend over 300 million clams on something they didn’t want or need. That money will have to come from somewhere else.
Equalisation payments? Tax-hikes? Program cut-backs?
Of course there is a case for proportional representation, since policy innovation is
dependent on bums-on-seats and hands-in-the-air voting in Ottawa or Toronto. But the legislation which covers the vast majority of our day-to-day concerns is already in place, independent of the political stripe of our current admin.
In my riding we’ve switched from Liberal to Conservative, neither of which I have ever
supported, but this won’t deter me in the slightest from banging on their door when I’ve something to say.
Why shouldn’t I?
Even diehard political partisans concede that many incumbents not of their own
persuasion are decent, hardworking and ethical people. So why not give them the benefit of the doubt? Isn’t that the Canadian way?
And if you are pleased with the outcome, you might even vote for them next time around.
Proportional representation? Shouldn’t we be far more concerned with declining voter turnout and our blind willingness to let power slip upwards to Toronto and Ottawa?
We need their authority and expertise sometimes, but most of our concerns could be addressed right here at home IF we had the authority and funds.
MMP isn’t going to change any of that, and as soon as McGuinty’s designed-to-fail
proposal was out of the gate last year, I smelt the rat.
Firstly, if additional “list” members are to be added to compensate for under-
representation, why not let electors choose the list-candidates?
Aren’t we smart enough?
I cringed at the thought of the party HQ darlings, failed candidates and other loyal clunkers taking a seat in parliament without the say-so of electors.
Secondly, would these faceless party-loyalists keep their list-envy if it involved redeployment from party HQ in Ottawa or Toronto to the most underserved parts of the province/country, to help out their exhausted partners?
Finally, I know my last offering ain’t gonna happen. But I thought, wouldn’t it be great if the major parties were allowed to choose the L-candidates….of their opponents?
From List to Loser?
Could be done around the time of year when turkey-shoots happen.
A chance to generate some more engagement with disillusioned voters!…?
I read your cogent and well-written comment with intense interest. I did so because – first of all I respect your thoughts and opinions and second – because you make very good points as always.
Somewhere along the way there has to be a level of trust in the overall political scheme of things. (I might make an exception when it came to the harper-cons however).
In any case…it’s my feeling that as far as the “party list” is concerned, most political leaders and members would want to place their best people on the list as opposed to hacks and hangers-on. We seem to elect plenty of those to office without the list in any case.
So – if I am right that the parties would choose good people for the list, I see no problem there.
The important thing that proportional representation would do (in my humble view), would be to force – yes – FORCE – these people to see other points of view and not just blunder along in conformity with the views of their base. (In the Harper case, base can be construed as having more than one meaning).
With respect, L.A. I think that your idea of having the various parties choose those on their opponents’ list would more than likely result in the worst possible choices.
We should remember that under proportional representation, a coalition government would be the order of the day. Therefore a cabinet might be made up of members from 3-4 different parties. You want to put your very very best candidates on the list so that their performance reflects well on the party concerned.
I really, honestly think we should push for it.
Good morning.
Just to say, where politicians are concerned I don’t march under the “trust” banner and never will.
Accountability is paramount, not faith.
By not vigorously contesting Harpers phony election-call, the non-Harper leaders have all done a grave and expensive disservice to democracy in Canada. They are hypocrites measurable on the Harper-scale.
My “L-for-Loser” candidate was of course a Punchian whimsy.
Of course I agree with you in general terms and specifical;ly with respect to the abdication of responsibility on the election call.
Proportional representation is a slightly different kettle of slightly different fish. Not Enterirely different…just slightly.
We must move forward one step at a time.