The in-house method of choosing the Speaker is of little interest to the broad Canadian public. That’s a pity because the ranked preferential ballot could fix one of the major problems in Canada’s modern, fragmented democracy.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 9, 2019.

OTTAWA—The ranked preferential ballot is how we ended up with a new House Speaker last week.

Many arcane processes surrounding the opening of a new Parliament are obscured by the subject matter of the Throne Speech. Political parties, especially in a minority, are most interested in discerning whether their political wish lists are included in what constitutes the government’s broad-brush agenda.

Interest groups focus on whether their specific area of expertise gets a mention in the Speech from the Throne. If it does, even minus any details of budget and timing, that constitutes a win.

But the in-house method of choosing the Speaker is of little interest to the broad Canadian public. That’s a pity because the ranked preferential ballot could fix one of the major problems in Canada’s modern, fragmented democracy.

With five political parties represented in Parliament, Canadians can arguably claim that there is no party with clear support from across the country. The Liberals managed to form a robust minority with the support of only 33.7 per cent of the population. The seat count for the Liberals was much higher than the Conservatives, even though the Tories got a bigger popular vote, because of the efficiency of their vote.

But the Conservatives still have bragging rights for securing the largest popular vote, with 34.41 per cent, bumped up by hyper majorities in the Prairie provinces.

And the other national parties in this minority Parliament have electoral reform on their wish list for a productive political agenda. The Bloc is not particularly interested in changing the current voting system because the first-past-the-post system has served them well. They have only one province to promote in their political agenda and with the huge increase in numbers in this past election, they are not going to be calling for an electoral change.

But both the New Democratic Party and the Green Party have made electoral reform an element of their political wish lists.

Political experts can make a compelling argument about how the current composition of Parliament misrepresents the views of Canadian voters when a party with less than 32 per cent of the popular vote can form government.

But the Greens and the NDP falsely claim that the only alternative system to fully represent the views of Canadians is that of mixed-member proportional representation. The problem with that claim is that their proposed system takes power away from ordinary voters to give it to political parties. In the PR system, even when it is mixed, some Members of Parliament are chosen by their own party based on a ranked list. In order to succeed in Ottawa, the focus of a listed Member of Parliament is to keep their party happy.

It doesn’t matter whether Canadians are satisfied with your work because they don’t vote for you. PR supporters dispute that claim because in the mixed-member proportional system, citizens vote twice, once for a local member and another for a party list choice.

Nonetheless, in three provincial referendums, citizens have voted the system down. But instead of going back to the drawing board and reviewing other systems that could achieve fairer representation, PR supporters restart their campaign after every election.

The new iteration of recycled PR supporters has just launched an organization called Unlock Democracy, raising money and promoting their message through social media. Their website claims the current system leads to a “hostile and polarized insiders’ game” and claiming that their system would deliver elections that are “fair, friendly, inclusive and diverse.”

The government of Israel has been in crisis for the last several months, because in their system, a party with eight members in the 120-seat Knesset currently wields the balance of power. The Parliament also includes more than 25 political parties, with a fragmentation that makes the country almost ungovernable.

Even though the PR system has been rejected by three different provincial referenda, across the country, proponents appear unwilling to consider any available alternative.

The best alternative is a preferential ballot. Your vote is efficient. Like that of the new House Speaker’s vote last week, voters rank their preferences from first to last. So, the winner needs to reach out to everyone. In that circumstance, the candidate who is everyone’s second choice, could beat out the frontrunner.

The key element in voting under a ranked ballot is that the person who has the most support from all sides wins.

Not a bad model to consider if we truly want to elect a government supported by the majority of Canadians.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, February 6, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—In politics, ambiguity is usually considered a sign of weak leadership. But it can sometimes be a blueprint for survival.

When the Government of France weighed in on the question of an independent Quebec back in 1977, they coined a phrase that epitomizes political ambiguity. The “non-indifference” policy was their explanation to support but not to interfere in the move for Quebec separation.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau displayed no such ambiguity when he launched a plan for electoral reform during the last election, boldly proclaiming that 2015 would be the last vote under the current system.

Today, he probably wishes that he had been a little less categorical. In the heat of a campaign, certainty is a lot more attractive than ambiguity.

Explaining his about-face in the House of Commons last week, the prime minister appeared uncomfortably resolute. Without consensus on electoral change, it would be folly to change the system.

Predictably, the New Democrats attacked Trudeau viciously. NDP spokesperson Nathan Cullen admonished himself publicly to choose his words carefully. He then proceeded to call the prime minister a “liar” and “the most cynical variety of politician” who “spit in the face” of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

Cullen’s response was angry, because his party stands to lose the most without proportional representation.

His party is also to blame for the impasse. They chaired the parliamentary committee which effectively set up the Liberal exit strategy.

By endorsing only one alternative system, that of proportional representation, committee members effectively signed the death warrant for electoral reform. The Conservatives said little last week, because they oppose reform. Their insistence on a national referendum on the matter was intended to scuttle any change.

By recommending only one system, and then agreeing to a national referendum, the NDP killed its own goose.

Anyone who is old enough to remember the national referendum on the Charlottetown Accord and the two Quebec referenda on separation knows that those debates are divisive and inconclusive. History informs us that the majority of provincial referenda on voting systems opted for the status quo. That was what the Conservatives were banking on.

The two major parties that actually want change are the Liberals and the New Democrats. By making common cause with the Conservatives, the New Democrats secured some short-term mileage. They also managed to damage the government minister charged with the responsibility of implementing electoral reform, with much public fanfare.

In the long term, their moves killed the only real opportunity for reform because they were unwilling to consider options other than proportional representation.

Late last year, I attended a meeting on Parliament Hill with former NDP member Lynn McDonald. At a discussion group involving former parliamentarians, she kept insisting that proportional representation was the only alternative to the current system supported by the experts.

She was not interested in any other system because the weighted vote tends to benefit centrist parties, not ideological parties situated on the left or right.

Fair Vote Canada promotes only one alternative, the proportional voting system. Not surprisingly many signatories to their “non-partisan” declaration are unions with public NDP affiliation.

Cullen referenced the number of Canadians upset by Trudeau’s reversal in the “hundreds of thousands.”

In a country of 34.6 million people, this does not appear to represent a strong enough impetus to change our current voting system with one that takes power from voters and gives it to political parties.

As one who left politics because of party interference in local nominations, I would be loathe to replace first-past-the-post with a system in which the parties can pick a list of their preferred candidates.

We should change how we vote. There are multiple examples of how a weighted vote would produce a Parliament that represents the majority without putting more power in the hands of parties.

The parliamentary committee, chaired by the NDP, could have worked toward a consensus report. They could have proposed multiple options for reform, including the weighted ballot. In that system, the voter ranks their preferences for member of parliament. This system guarantees that the candidate with the most support from the voters is sent to Parliament.

New Democrats promoted proportional representation, because their primary wish is implement a system where smaller parties get more seats in the House.

They were snookered by the Conservatives, who managed to secure a commitment for a national referendum.

That lack of consensus left Trudeau with no choice.

The least worst system remains.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era Cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.