Can the Liberals be trusted with PR? Some cautious optimism
That's the million dollar question.
It's not about which of the infinite varieties of MMP, STV or some hybrid someone might prefer. No matter which angle you tackle it - by the research evidence, or by values (equality, fairness, inclusiveness etc) - there's no way a credible process involving citizens and experts will recommend another winner-take-all voting system. The last 12 haven't. Yet that's exactly what people fear is going to happen
I'm a fairly pessimistic person. I've worked hard to change that, but some basic personality features persist.
I wasn't born behind a rose bush yesterday on this issue, either. I know how hard this is. I've been working on PR now for 8 years I'm well aware of all the political history (promises going back to 1920, and politicians whose main concern in electoral system design is which one guarantees their future career prospects). And yet, I'm optimistic.
I think we have as many reasons to be optimistic as pessimistic. Here's why 1) Countries change their systems - it happens.
We hear all the time from cynics:
"Politicians will never change the system that elected them."
This is what makes PR hardest cause - rivaled only by climate change - and many people give up before they get started.
Yet countries can and do change their systems. Like David Farrell said on Fair Vote Canada's webinar last week, the trend around the world is toward more proportionality. Our system is defunct. The data backs him up.
Although the situation in every country is different, at some point political circumstances and enough politicians willing to do the right thing coincide. Look at Nelson Mandela - he helped introduce PR in South Africa when what would have benefited him the most is winner-take-all voting - since blacks are the majority or plurality in most of the ridings.
We could be at that sweet spot in Canada right now.
2) The Liberals have made a promise, and they're plowing ahead. I remember sitting at my computer in 2012 watching the Liberals pass the Alternative Vote resolution at their convention and feeling utterly defeated, like it was a nail in the coffin, knowing how much harder that resolution - endorsing another winner-take-all voting system instead of PR - just made our campaign. Yet it was later that same year that Stephane Dion - who supported the AV resolution - introduced his proportional P3 system at Fair Vote Canada's 2012 AGM. A year after that he stood at a press conference on Parliament Hill to back the launch of our 2015 campaign for PR. The party was not endorsing PR, but the discussion was progressing in the party. In February, 2014, the party passed a new resolution, calling for a look at all options, including preferential ballot and/or PR.
In December, 2014, 1/2 of the Liberal caucus voted yes in the House of Commons to an NDP motion for MMP.
In June, 2014, I had the radio cranked up to max at the pizza store where I worked to hear Trudeau announce their platform on democratic reform, in which he said: "We will make every vote count." If you haven't listened to his words here's the video. Even if you don't believe a word of it, this is what we need to hold him to:
Now of course the skeptics said, "Who cares? He was just saying that because the NDP were running on PR and they Liberals were in third place."
But people don't realize all the hard work that went on for 3 years behind the scenes in discussions within the party to get that commitment, combined with four years of a live demonstration of what a 39% majority out of tune with Canadians can do. The campaign promise wasn't just a random product of political circumstances.
After the Election
So now the Liberals have shocked the world (the electoral reform world) by winning a 39% majority and going on to to say that they will not abandon their promise.
They repeated "Make Every Vote Count" in the Throne Speech.
They've resisted a substantial mainstream media campaign calling on them to break their promise with a referendum or just abandon it completely.
They've now announced 10.7 million dollars in the federal budget for consultation and education - 8 million to be spent this year as they travel the country asking Canadians about what values are most important to them.
On April 20, 2016, Justin Trudeau just said:
"And I'm very well aware that the current electoral system worked out pretty good for me this time. That's something where it would be very tempting to say "well, it's too complicated". If I wanted to do that then there would be all sorts of push and motivation for me not to follow up on that. Except I believe fundamentally that we can do better. We can have an electoral system that does a better job of reflecting the concerns, the voices of Canadians from coast to coast to coast and give us a better level of governance.
And a lot of people I've talked to have said "Oh yes, we really really wanted electoral reform because we had to get rid of Stephen Harper but now that we have a government that we like so electoral reform just doesn't seem like as much of a priority. Well, it's a priority to me. It's a priority to a lot of Canadians who say "You know what? We need to make sure that going forward we have the best possible electoral system. One that values Canadian voices, one that creates good governments, one that makes sure people can and feel involved in the political process, that they don't have to make impossible choices between options they don't like, that we are able to create the kind of governance that we need in this country. "
3) The Liberals Would Be Taking a Huge Risk to Ram Through AV
Despite all this, the opposition parties are busy making sure everyone knows they think "the fix is in" - the Liberals plan to just ram through Alternative Vote (preferential ballot in single member ridings), a winner-take-all system simulations show would be to their advantage at the expense of the other parties - regardless of what anyone thinks.
This seems possible, but unlikely, to me.
Because AV disadvantages the Conservatives in the short term, the Conservatives have come out strongly against AV. They've gone so far as to send constituents mailings against it, alleging again that the fix is in.
The NDP and some union allies have pretty much started a crusade against AV. Which unfortunately they - and the media - often call "ranked ballot", which drags PR-STV (a proportional ranked ballot) along with it.
The Liberals know they need cross-partisan consensus to have any credibility on electoral reform.
If they implement a reform that: a) goes against evidence b) goes against values c) goes against the screaming of all the other parties
then that reform will just be undone as soon as the opposition can manage it. That's how winner-take-all voting systems work. If a policy is only supported by one party, who can implement it with a phony majority, then the next party with a phony majority will spend much of its mandate undoing what the previous party brought in. It's called "policy lurch", and it's another reason we need PR.
If they want cross-partisan support from the NDP or Greens, it has to be some kind of PR. If the Liberals want to sabotage PR, I think they'd be more likely to do it by claiming the committee cannot reach consensus, or proposing some PR-super-lite model, than by forcing through AV.
4) The April 2016 Event with Maryam Monsef
This event was organized by Kevin Page, who is a public PR supporter and top signer on Peter Russell's letter from 530 academics asking the parties to implement PR.
Maryam acknowledged Fair Vote Canada in the audience as the first group she asked about. (She's no doubt aware FVC volunteers have recently visited about 100 MPs). When she rhymed off possible systems the first two she mentioned were STV, then MMP - nothing about "preferential ballot."
More importantly:
The first principle she mentioned - the one she says there is consensus around in the research and in ordinary conversations - loosely defines PR. See poster on the left for the quote and right for the principles:
Well, that is not clear enough, the skeptics understandably say. But try to understand the position of the Liberal Party. The way the Liberal PR supporters got the party on board for this consultation in the first place was a commitment to look at all options. They have repeated "we have no preconceived notions" more times than I can count.
I know everyone who supports PR - and knows the evidence and values support PR - wants to hear the Liberals say, before the consultation even begins, "We support PR." Basically, throw "no preconceived notions" and the resolution passed by their members to the dogs and take a stand for PR only, explicitly. It isn't going to happen. But every time they don't say exactly what we want to hear early on doesn't mean that we won't get there.
If they come down for PR now - more clearly than they just hinted at with value #1 - their credibility with the consultation is out the window. Not only with their own party, but they would give a gift to the Conservative opponents. "Why have a process when you've already decided?" the opposition will say, The Liberal MPs who are opposed or unsure - some of whom are genuinely open minded and can be brought onside by a highly credible process - will have a revolt. I understand where the skeptics are coming from. Of course they are right that with vague language, a party can lie about anything. They can say, "Well, AV is less distorted" (even when the Index of Disproportionality shows that to be false") or "AV makes every vote count" (when it wastes most of the votes).
And of COURSE the opposition is going to say "the fix is in" (for AV). They've been saying that for six months or more. Many NDP do really believe it but even if they didn't, that is what opposition parties do! It's not a bad thing - they're pushing the Liberals to prove them wrong. 5) Elections Canada just identified preparing for electoral reform as a top priority. In their just released 2016/2017 report on goals - signed off on by our Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand and Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monself - on page one they state they will be ready to deliver "a fundamentally different election in 2019" and prepared for "a range of eventualities eventualities including a review of electoral boundaries". That's PR.
6) At a provincial level, neither party has any credibility on this file - it's not just Liberals
In PEI, it sure looks like the fix is in with a referendum this fall on 5 different options - 3 of them winner-take-all - and a mere six month education period to educate people on things they've never heard of. And if there was ever a situation set up to fail - so the politicians could say voters rejected PR - the Ontario referendum is the perfect case study. But look at the NDP, who are saying "the fix is in." In Manitoba, the Liberal Party ran on PR - using Fair Vote Canada's research while the NDP wiggled away from it as fast as they could. First-past-the-post worked for them (until they lost). In BC, the No to STV campaign was led by an NDP. In Alberta, Rachel Notley's government - elected to a majority with 40% of the vote - has no apparent interest in PR. In Nova Scotia the NDP had no interest in PR while in power, despite its previous support in opposition. So there's nothing particular about the Liberal Party which makes them more or less untrustworthy on this issue. We just can't judge what either federal party is going to do at any given time based on what the provincial party has done in the past.
In Europe, it was most often the left, working class, and labour who pushed for PR and the centre or right which delivered it. I'm choosing optimism
I didn't say blind optimism. Organizations representation millions of voters including organizations like the YWCA have now joined Fair Vote Canada in the Every Voter Counts Alliance. We have the volunteers, the passion, the research, the values and the promise. I am choosing realistic optimism in the power of all of us working together to drive the message home to the government over the next 12 months that the new system must be proportional.
Until we see what the all-party committee delivers a year from today, trying to figure out exactly what Maryam Monsef meant on any given occasion - beyond what it sounds like she meant - is like reading tea leaves.
