What happens on December 1?

In the last federal election, nine million voters elected nobody. A majority government was elected with 39.5% of the vote. Those situations are the norm, yet this is supposed to be a modern, "representative democracy." In case you're wondering "What's the problem?" - that's it. As everyone following this process closely knows, on December 1 the all-party committee on electoral reform (ERRE) must release a final report with a recommendation. The fundamental issue of fairness - accurately translating votes into seats - hasn't changed since the concept of proportional representation was invented in the 1800's. Britain was kind enough to give Ireland a PR-STV electoral system (to make sure minority voices were fairly represented) but here in Canada, we got first-past-the-post. British political scientists helped the Germans invent MMP in 1946 (now used in Scotland, Wales and NZ). Reading the detailed debates in Parliament from the early 1920's - following a Liberal election promise to deliver PR (STV) - shows how little has really changed in terms of the arguments for and against PR. The arguments for PR are based on fairness. The arguments against PR are based on political self interest. The main thing that has changed since the early 1920's is that most OECD countries have chosen to make almost every vote count, whereas Canada's politicians have not. Instead, we are stuck in what can feel like an endless cycle of assemblies, committees and commissions which all recommend PR and are all thwarted by the personal and partisan self interest of those elected under first-past-the-post. As Professor Nelson Wiseman commented to ERRE: "Now, many have studied alternate voting systems, including a number of provincial governments, citizens' assemblies, academics, the law reform commission, and others. I'm curious what your committee is going to learn that is new." As usual, the academics are generally supportive but cynical, the politicians involved in the decision seem barely aware of the enormous body of work already done on this in Canada and abroad, and the mainstream media pundits frame their opposition commentaries in terms of "The process is flawed" and "What's the problem, really?" (Later they will move on to the usual system-specific fear tactics with more vigor). In 2015, a "sunny ways" government was elected promising "real change." You can watch the promise here. Are we headed for a replay of the usual movie? ERRE Committee Background and Work To borrow a phrase from a recently retired politician, "Let me be clear": Three parties - representing 63% of voters - promised that 2015 was the last election using first-past-the-post and to "make every vote count." The all-party committee to deliver the specifics (ERRE) is proportional to the popular vote. Only one party wants a referendum - and they are now sitting in opposition. The practical overlap between people who want a referendum and people who want to keep first-past-the-post is about 98%. This isn't about a sudden interest in direct democracy. The Liberal government set a VERY SPECIFIC and realistic timeline to deliver on its promise: All-party committee and consultation in the first year, followed by first reading of legislation for a new electoral system in spring 2017. We are coming to the end of Part One: - Hundreds of MP town halls and community events and dialogues - the ERRE committee has heard from experts and academics from Canada and around the world - the ERRE committee has travelled Canada holding open meetings for Canadians - the ERRE committee has invited individuals to fill out a survey and submit briefs - Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef has conducted her own event tour across Canada gathering feedback. Although not without very loud dissenting voices (mainly from one party camp), the majority of what they have heard from public participation so far is: PR PR PR PR. To get to legislation in May 2017 the ERRE committee must produce something specific on December 1 besides a recap of what they heard, an essay on how wonderful Canada's diversity is, and some lamentation on how difficult it is to make a decision. What Can We Hope for on December 1 Unless you have a crystal ball, nobody knows what's going to happen December 1. Here are some options, in my opinion, from best to worst. 1) A unanimous report from the committee for a strongly proportional system. Okay, now that we've dispensed with that fairy tale, moving on. (It could happen, in which case you'll find them reviving me at the emergency department). 2) A recommendation from a majority on the committee for implementation of a specific, strongly proportional system. They could really do it! When they choose a system they may have further focused public consultations this winter around design features (district/region size, how much choice voters have over candidates if it's MMP etc) before legislation in spring 2017. (Or it may come fully fleshed out December 1, but I doubt it). 3) A recommendation for 2-3 proportional systems as options. This would presumably by followed by further public consultations immediately on what features/values are most important to Canadians to assist the committee to make a choice in time for legislation spring 2017. 4) A recommendation for PR-lite or super-lite. This recommendation would have been the result of backroom caucus discussions about what government MPs concerned primarily with job protection will happily support in a free vote (The Liberals, it seems, don't want to whip the vote, and they don't want to look bad by having so many of their own MPs vote against the bill that it is defeated). In the process of negotiating with their own MPs, voters could get screwed. We could be talking about really bad, like adding 10% top up seats to the House (protect current MPs, continue the phony majorities, add a bit of diversity and a few Greens and claim "real change" - see simulations here under MMP-lite). We could be talking about not quite as bad (in my view) - like Kingsley's model (keep up to 80 seats in large rural areas single member, rest multi-member PR). The glaringly obvious problem with this system is inequality for rural voters, half of whom will be stuck with an MP they didn't vote for. Although based on 2015 voting patterns the overall proportionality of Kingsley's model is pretty good, it is not a resilient system - a shift in voting patterns could lead to badly distorted overall results in future. (IMPORTANT NOTE: Fair Vote Canada has developed a fully proportional version of Kinglsey's model here!) In either case, the danger is that PR-lite or Super Lite is put out there to groups and parties supporting PR as a "take it or leave it" improvement. It will garner about as much enthusiasm as the watered down version of Chong's Reform Act. 5) The report says they can't reach any kind of consensus and recommends a new process like a citizens' assembly to pick a system. Why do I have this so low on the "desired options" list? Well, Marc Mayrand says it takes up to two years to redistribute boundaries. Where is the time for this assembly? No party campaigned on an assembly. After the assembly makes a recommendation the politicians will be in the same boat as they would otherwise be December 1 if they made their own recommendation now: Trying to see if the proposal has enough support to pass a free vote. What if - as happened in QC in 2005 - the governing party MPs don't agree with the recommendation of the Citizens process? Following this process, the new system still has to pass 3 votes in the House plus the Senate. More processes open up the politicians favourite excuse box on this issue: We just couldn't get it done in time for 2019. We really tried, but (name which party - not their own) was at fault. If history has taught us anything it's that the odds that three parties will AGAIN campaign on electoral reform in the next election and get elected, and the incoming government will be interested in picking up the work of the previous government on this issue to deliver for 2024 are small. 6) Referendum. As with a citizens assembly, referendum would have to be held pretty darned quick to get an outcome and then (if successful) start the process of getting the new system in place for 2019. Meaning, as with every other referendum on this issue (well documented by academics), it will involve misinformed or mostly clueless voters. I won't outline the many other reasons a referendum is a bad idea - those of you reading this blog know them. Nelson Wiseman summed it up for ERRE: "I'm aware of a recent poll that says 65% of respondents favour having a referendum. I suggest you discount such polls. I have yet to see a poll on any issue in which respondents said a referendum was not their preference, when they're asked. I think referendums are a dreadful way to determine policy or to be taken as the cardinal measure of democracy. I would not put the issue of an alternate voting system to a referendum. It's unnecessary, it's a waste of money, and it will almost certainly fail. You may as well recommend not changing the system and save Canadians the cost." Of course we can talk about hypothetical dream scenarios where: - the referendum is between 3 PR options only, and the chosen option will be implemented as a life or death promise for 2019 - all the parties shout "Hip Hip Hooray for PR!" to their supporters via the mainstream media and party mailing lists non-stop during the campaign, and - every voter gets so many exciting pamphlets about the 3 PR options that they could wallpaper their homes with them, and the commercials for them are running in back to back loops during Hockey Night in Canada Considering that most of the MPs of one party and a good number of the MPs of another oppose PR, and one party is demanding that any referendum include an option of first-past-the-post, I will upgrade my opinion of referendum only when somebody can convince me at least 2/3 conditions above are actually happening. Bottom Line We need a strong PR recommendation from the ERRE committee December 1. Canadians in the majority elected politicians to deliver for voters. The time to do the right thing is approaching fast. Things you can do: 1) Send Fair Vote Canada's submission to ERRE to your MP here. 2) Email ERRE to tell them you support a PR recommendation - erre@parl.gc.ca 2) Meet with your MP to educate him/ her and ask your MP to support PR.