Assessment of the Government's Guiding Principles
Our values, their values, and finding the common ground
Lets' start with our values. Those of us who are campaigning for proportional representation are focused on seeing the government deliver on a few core values, inextricably linked to their platform to "Make Every Vote Count." They're not values we pulled out of our heads, they're drawn from the common values identified by every commission in Canada which has taken an objective look at this topic, including those which deeply involved our fellow citizens and voters. These values include:
Proportional representation
Effective Votes
Voter Equality
Representation of Diversity (in every region of Canada and demographic diversity)
Cross-Party collaboration
I might also add one of the three core values identified by the BC Citizens' Assembly: Voter Choice. (The other two were proportional representation and effective local representation).
I haven't put "local representation" on that list. It will be a part of any PR system - there is zero chance it won't be. We have local representation now. Your particular and possibly arbitrarily chosen piece of geography is already represented by an MP and you are along for the ride, whether you care for that person or his/her party or not. Local representation of some sort is a given in any PR model for Canada, but it's not a value of proportional representation. The BC Citizens' Assembly concluded that the "local representation" that occurs through single member ridings was good in theory and close to abysmal in reality. They felt STV - a team of local MPs - would make local representatives more "effective". Others feel that single member ridings are more effective, in a different way that has nothing to do with PR. The list above are values that I think all PR supporters would agree upon, regardless of model.
The Government's Guiding Principles
The government didn't call up groups like Fair Vote Canada, much less me, to see what principles we might like. So here's what we have to work with now, from the Order Paper, with my assessment of how they relate to the campaign for PR
PRINCIPLE ONE
(a) Effectiveness and legitimacy: that the proposed measure would increase public confidence among Canadians that their democratic will, as expressed by their votes, will be fairly translated and that the proposed measure reduces distortion and strengthens the link between voter intention and the election of representatives;
Positives
For a government which won't say it supports proportional representation before they do the consultation - and which needs to bring a reluctant or undecided caucus along - we could barely ask for better than this. "Fairly translated", "reduces distortion", "strengthens the link between voter intention and election of representatives". All pro-PR values.
Negatives
The communications from the government have a way of not actually saying that the votes must be translated more fairly into seats, but that people must "believe" they are. In this version, it's phrased as "increase public confidence" that they are. It's a subtle but important distinction.
The bigger concern for me is the word "reduce." All the models on the table for Canada are already moderate compared to most countries which use PR. We can't afford much watering down of any of the options before we venture into the territory somewhere between PR-lite and token improvement. We want our representatives to give us the best democracy possible, not the lowest common denominator compromise.
The Lesson
We must communicate to the government that the only way people are going to believe or have confidence that their votes are translated into seats is if they actually are.
PRINCIPLE TWO
(b) Engagement: that the proposed measure would encourage voting and participation in the democratic process, foster greater civility and collaboration in politics, enhance social cohesion and offer opportunities for inclusion of underrepresented groups in the political process;
Positives
"Encourage voting"
It is well established that PR countries on average have higher voter turnout. "Foster greater civility and collaboration in politics"
Great stuff. It makes little sense during an election campaign to totally demonize your potential coalition partner. With PR-STV, coalitions aside, you're looking for second choice votes. Voters often know who is likely to work together. PR means vigorous competition for the most seats, while the greatly reducing the nastiness between candidates with the same values. Collaboration in a government elected by PR - whether majority coalition, minority coalition or supply and confidence agreement - is a MUST. In coalitions, different parties write legislation together. Compromises are made and to some extent credit and accountability is shared. I believe both diversity and collaboration in the government will be key to good policy. "Enhance Social Cohesion and offer opportunities for inclusion of underrepresented groups in the political process" "Social cohesion" is hard to interpret in the context of electoral reform. If it's code for "avoid fragmentation", well, all the PR systems for Canada are fairly moderate. The wedge politics we've seen with winner-take-all voting hardly promotes social cohesion. But the full explanation is much more encouraging. One of the key values of PR I didn't list above is inclusiveness. One of the reasons diverse countries adopt PR is because it's much better to have minority voices fairly represented and participating effectively in the political process than to shut them out, which only leads to more expression of those frustrations outside of the political process. "Diversity is our strength", as Justin Trudeau states. For that principle to apply beyond any one party at one point in time, we need PR. Negatives "Encourage voting"
Of course "encourage voting" is not negative, but neither is increased voter turnout a guarantee with PR. Although PR countries have higher turnout, adopting PR after 150 years of first-past-the-post has not been proven to increase voter turnout. One would hope that when votes cease being a message to the universe and start electing representatives, more voters will come out. One would hope that citizens would use this new tool they have been given, and that voters who have given up will be attracted back over time. The principle says "encourage", not "guarantee." It's important to note that voter turnout on its own is a different goal than PR. Let's say voting was mandatory, and we got, as usual, a 39% majority government but with 100% of people marking an X. It would be just as likely. Now the raw number of people who voted for the government, and the raw number of people who elected no-one have both increased. Perhaps that solves something, I don't know, but it's not related to PR.
Lesson
We all want to see higher voter turnout but we can't make this about mandatory voting.
PRINCIPLE THREE
(c) Accessibility and inclusiveness: that the proposed measure would avoid undue complexity in the voting process, while respecting the other principles, and that it would support access by all eligible voters regardless of physical or social condition;
Positives and Negatives
See inclusiveness above as a positive..
"Avoid undue complexity in the voting process, while respecting the other principles"
In the past the government has put greater emphasis on "simplicity" - elevating it to a hugely important "value". A simply designed ballot of course is of course desirable - as is a simple census, a simple tax form, a simple phone number, a simple automatic bank machine - anything that most people need to use, really. But it's always been hard to see a "simple ballot" as a democratic value. For most of us campaigning for PR, it's appeared to be an excuse to keep winner-take-all voting based on the premise that Canadians aren't as smart as most of the modern democratic world. The good news here is that the government has significantly softened and specified it's language on simplicity. It is now not the counting process which must be simple (done by Elections Canada), but the voting process. In other words, what voters must do. And all PR systems are voter friendly - 1,2,3...or tick two boxes. It also says that simplicity must not come at the cost of the other principles. I consider both of these changes in language a significant win.
PRINCIPLE FOUR
(d) Integrity: that the proposed measure can be implemented while safeguarding public trust in the election process, by ensuring reliable and verifiable results obtained through an effective and objective process that is secure and preserves vote secrecy for individual Canadians;
Well, we can use a PR-related definition of integrity here, but the aim of this principle seems more related to online voting.
PRINCIPLE FIVE
(e) Local representation: that the proposed measure would ensure accountability and recognize the value that Canadians attach to community, to Members of Parliament understanding local conditions and advancing local needs at the national level, and to having access to Members of Parliament to facilitate resolution of their concerns and participation in the democratic process;
Positives
Like principle three (avoiding undue complexity), the good news here is that the government has softened its language on local representation so it no longer just sounds like they're talking exclusively about single member constituencies to achieve it.
Accountability, valuing community, MPs understanding local conditions, access to Members of Parliament - those are all objectives that can be achieved with STV or MMP. Negatives
I don't see any negatives in the language here, even though the political reality is that "local representation" will be one of the main talking points MPs who don't want PR will use to justify something as close as possible to the status quo. But this principle isn't giving them anything additional to work with.
Summary
While this isn't a list of principles written by a PR campaign, there are a lot of hopeful elements to work with going forward - some values that can only be met with a PR system, and nothing that could only be met with a majoritarian system. While there is still too much wiggle room for a token element of proportionality in these principles, the building blocks for "real change" are also on the Order Paper.
