A Presentation by Troy Lanigan.
National Communications Director,
Canadian Taxpayers Federation

To Civitas' 10th Annual National Conference
May 7, 2006
Ottawa, Ontario

• Click here for animations that illustrate how the Single Transferable Vote works, along with the current First Past the Post voting system.

There are three (or four) broad categories of voting systems:

1. Majoritarian systems – 50% plus 1. Leadership races in Canada, AUS lower house, French run-off, Ukraine.

2. Plurality systems – winner take all or first-past-the-post. Canada, UK (Westminster), India, US.

3. Proportional Systems – where vote share is reflected as seat share in an assembly. NZ, Germany, Ireland, The Netherlands, most democracies.

4. Mixed systems – Parallel or semi-proportional. Japan/Russia.

Now within each of these categories there are literally dozens of variations and cross-overs.

Countries employ different voting systems at different levels of government UK: PR in Welsh and Scottish parliaments, London city and FPTP in Westminster

And there are variations between the same system in different countries: STV in AUS is different than it is in Ireland, MMP in NZ different than it is in Germany. You try to fit the system to it's locality.

Which brings us home. Of late there has been a great deal of discussion and initiatives undertaken to change the voting system in Canada … last year there were two provincial referendums on voting change one in British Columbia and the other in PEI. Legislation is expected in Quebec's National Assembly this fall and processes are underway in Ontario and New Brunswick.

Generally proposals for change in Canada are for one of two things … Both are proportional.

1. MMP – NZ opted for in its referendum in the 90's. Two votes.

2. STV – Ireland. One vote in multi-member riding. Vote for candidate only. Each candidate meets a threshold …

I contend that either of these two systems would be vast improvements over what we have currently in Canada and the provinces …

But first, let me back up and give some context to why I'm standing up here …

What does a taxpayers' organization have to do with voting reform?

The mission statement of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation – is lower taxes, less waste and accountable government.

Surveys of our 72,000 supporters across the country identify "accountable government" as the most important element of our mission.

Many of our supporters would say that high taxes and government waste are symptomatic of the larger problem of political parties and institutions that are increasingly removed/disconnected from the people they serve …

So we have long advocated citizen-initiated referendums, recall and reform of the Senate as a means to empower citizens and hold government more accountable.

Our involvement in voting reform was born last decade in my home province of British Columbia where the NDP were "elected" – gulp – to two majority governments with 40% of the vote. 60% of British Columbians didn't want that party, those leaders or those policies yet that is what they got for 10 straight years as the province slid from have to have-not status.

In fact, in 1996 the Liberals received 42% of the vote to the NDP's 39% - yet in a bizarre twist of the voting system that 39% translated into 100% of the power.

Of course examples cut both ways and BC was not an isolated case. Elections in both Saskatchewan and Quebec in the 90s also resulted in the governing parties receiving fewer votes than their Opposition rivals.

These events were a catalyst for change and led to reviews in five provinces including a citizens' assembly process in British Columbia that recommended a Single Transferable Vote; and was voted on in a referendum in May of last year. A mirror of this process is underway in Ontario right now.

What I want to do is offer a Coles Notes version of just three arguments in support of changing the system that were identified in our supporter surveys consistent with our mission statement under the umbrella of improving government accountability.

1. Party Discipline and Concentration of Power
2. Representation
3. Choice

Party Discipline and Concentration of Power

Our current voting system translates a minority of votes – or a small majority of votes -- into huge majorities of seats in the legislature for one party.

That, combined with party discipline give modern day premiers/pm's control of both their cabinet and assembly.

Unfortunately, this system makes it difficult for assemblies to provide one of their most essential functions: to place a check on the powers of the premier/PM and cabinet in order to protect the interests of citizens and taxpayers.

In our system there is no control on government between elections – except parliament itself. For such control to be possible there has to be a correction of the imbalances that give rise to the concentration of power.

Seat distribution is always widely out of sync with popular vote as anyone in Canada is familiar ... It is precisely this feature of FPTP which generates excessive power for premiers.

That power is not diffused by having more so-called free votes, or co-opted committees or opposition days in the legislature or other canards often floated by politicians. Power is best diffused when the rules that grant manufactured majorities is changed.

Any voting system that is more proportional will make legislative assemblies more lively and less dominated by one party leader.

Under a more proportional voting system it's less likely one party can stack committees, make patronage appointments and dictate the legislative agenda.

Any voting system that welcomes new entrants, utilizes multi-member constituencies or members with overlapping jurisdictions creates competition, ideas, debate and importantly incentives that weaken the stranglehold of party discipline.

This is not to deny majority governments … people often vote for majority governments … but it is to say that whereas under FPTP large majorities are often assumed; under a reformed voting system, majorities will be earned …


Representation

Simply put … representation is enhanced when your vote counts.

If you wake up the morning after an election and you got neither the representative or government you voted for … how are you represented? You're not…

Under a more proportional voting system you can almost be assured that your vote will go toward electing someone who represents you … because the current system allows only one group of partisan voters in each riding to have representation. The rest – often the majority – get no representation.

And I want to use the example of cleavages at the national level to illustrate my point.

It always surprises people to learn that the Reform and Alliance Parties received nearly as many votes in Ontario as they did British Columbia and Alberta combined during elections in the 1990s – yet the results of seat totals showed the exact opposite, suggesting these parties were Western-based, regional rumps. Not true.

Now, according to pundits, instead of regional splits we have an urban/rural split, because the Conservatives were shut out of seats in the Big 3 urban centers: Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver in this year's election. Yet consider that the Conservatives 440,000 votes in these cities translated into zero seats whereas a similar number of votes in the Atlantic provinces translated into fully 20 Liberal seats.

Voters are not being served by a system that attaches representation to some votes, but not others. Anecdotally, it seems one of the primary reasons voter turnout has dropped so dramatically. People won't bother voting if they don't see their voting counting toward representation.


Choice

One of my personal frustrations is what I would call "convergence of the parties". That is, that most differences during election campaigns are peripheral: who will manage the economy better that sort of thing. On big issues there is general agreement.

Take health care for example: many polls suggest that a large percentage of Canadians support – Health Care Freedom -- being able to spend their own after tax dollars on health care … yet there's not a single party in the country (federal or provincial) of any significance that supports that proposition.

Why should all issues in this country be brokered off to a few large political parties? What's wrong with new entrants, new ideas? [reference last presentation] What's wrong with being able to vote for something instead of voting against something every election?

A more proportional voting system would allow that to happen …

Our moderator has used the analogy of the market place in relation to voting.

When we go shopping for shoes we don't have to buy shoes that everyone else likes. We buy the shoes that we like. If 10% of the population prefers that kind of shoe – that's what they get.

Now of course you can't settle every issue that way … but at the same time, whenever possible, choice should be maximized.

And in those instances when the majority does rule – you would want the body in which that decision was made to reflect preferences of individual voters in the larger population.

Example of ACT.


Conclusion

In closing, I want to say that changing the voting system won't solve every ill and frustration of government: unresponsiveness, broken promises, lack of accountability. But it can and should be an important part of democratic reform that a growing number of Canadians are demanding. It will – by definition – change the rules and incentives inherent in the status quo.

Our starting point is a citizen-led review and recommendation subject to voter approval via referendum.

It's important to reinforce that voting systems are like ice cream. There's hundreds of flavors. Voters must choose a system that works for them. That's why its important that recommendations be citizen, rather than government driven (as is the case in Quebec right now).

So what happened in British Columbia? One month outside of our referendum – our chances of success were almost universally written off – yet we never let up and at the end of the day managed a majority in 77/79 seats and 58% support province-wide.

Unfortunately, the Campbell government – which to their credit initiated this entire process -- did not institute the outcome. They had set a threshold of 60%. However, sitting with 46% it was impossible to ignore, so we're having a second referendum in 2009 concurrent with the provincial election. Have me back in 3 years and I'll let you know how it went.

By: Troy Lanigan
Posted: May 06, 2006
Topic: Federal

Contact the regional director Gregory Thomas for further information.

Type: Related

Join Us   |   Donate