Thank you for the invitation and opportunity to be here today…

I come from an island on the opposite side of the country that earlier this year had a voting reform referendum similar to what you will have here on November 28th…

I'll reference our experience in British Columbia a little bit later … but first I want to point out that there is an appetite for change right across this country … from British Columbia to PEI … from Quebec to New Brunswick. Even our country's largest province – Ontario – has committed to a citizens' assembly process that will forward recommendations on changing the voting system and holding a referendum.

I'm sure that most politicians would rather not change the system. After all, what we have currently, saw the wisdom in electing them…

Yet despite this … the appetite for change is such that it can not be ignored … more and more parties are adopting resolutions, making voting reform part of their platforms and implementing processes once in office that can lead to change. They're doing this because the public is demanding change in overwhelming numbers … if it wasn't we wouldn't be here today…

I've been involved with the issue of voting reform formally for 8 years…one of its characteristics is a broad diversity of people and approaches to why change is so necessary.

Most of these people have been on the left of the political spectrum. I am assuredly not one of those people. So despite whatever impression you might have, there are many like myself on the other side of the fence who support changing our voting system …

The mission statement for the organization I represent -- the Canadian Taxpayers Federation – is lower taxes, less waste and accountable government.

A survey last year of our 72,000 supporters across the country identified "accountable government" as the most important element of our mission.

And perhaps that should come as no surprise.

Today's newspaper headlines are ripe with examples of political scandal. Whether it's the millions of tax dollars stolen in the federal sponsorship scandal or the audit into polar foods here in PEI … unfortunately, they are not isolated incidents …worse, they're often compounded when you have a system of strong party discipline coupled with virtually no opposition to keep a government in check…

There are as many arguments in favour of voting reform as there are proponents…

Many argue that it is a "fairness issue"…party "a" or party "b" didn't get their fair share of seats. Or women or aboriginals are under-represented…all worthy arguments and likely to change under a new voting system…

However my comments are focused largely on the issue of government accountability…and asking whether changing the voting system can contribute to that end.

I will speak to the three elements in support of change…1) diffusing the concentration of power in the hands of premier and cabinet; 2) strengthening representation; and 3) maximizing voter choice….

I want to then address two common critiques…1) the fear of unstable government or "not getting things done" and 2) control by political parties/bosses…

I'll conclude by summarizing a few thoughts from our experience in British Columbia and why what you do her on November 28th is so important in the context of the country as a whole…


Diffusing the concentration of power in the hands of the premier and cabinet

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 control of both their cabinet and assembly.

Unfortunately, this system makes it difficult for legislative assemblies to provide one of their most essential functions: to place a check on the powers of the premier 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 everyone in this province is familiar ... It is precisely this feature of F.P.T.P. which generates excessive power for premiers.

That power is not having more so-called free votes, or co-opted committees or opposition days in the legislature. Power is only diffused where the rules that grant manufactured majorities is changed.

Explain MMP ...

Any voting system that is more proportional like MMP will make the legislative assembly 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 control the legislative agenda.

More proportional voting systems lend themselves to a more deliberative democracy and a more accountable democracy because lop-sided majorities and one-party dominance will be eliminated.

There's another important consideration: local MLAs and province-wide MLAs will approach issues from different prospectives – again, contributing to deliberation and accountability – but also, hopefully weakening 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 F.P.T.P. disproportionately large majorities are assumed; under a more inclusive voting system, majorities will be earned…and subject both to the healthy process of greater deliberation and serving the important function of accountability.


Strengthens 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…

In three provinces in the decade of the 1990s – Quebec, Saskatchewan and British Columbia – the parties governing with 100% of the power not only did not get a majority of the votes…they got fewer votes than their main rivals.

This hasn't happened in PEI … and while you might consider it a blessing … more likely it's a warning of what first-past-the-post may still bring you.

Adopting the MMP proposal however assures you that that scenario will never happen.

Your vote will count. Even if you don't get the local representative or government that you want…you will have a representative that shares your viewpoint.

Let's say a government is hostile to business concerns. Your local representative – a member of the governing party-is also hostile to business. Where do you turn?

Almost assuredly there will be MLAs elected off the list that share your views and can champion your concerns in the legislature.

Under the current system, almost half the voters have no outlet. That's not a system that embraces accountability.

Second, I believe two types of MLAs can create competition to be more responsive…

List MLAs for example may have incentives to work hard in areas where they have traditionally failed to win seats in local elections…new incentives and opportunities exist for the parties to serve voters well.

Third, a 5% threshold for a list representative opens the door for new entrants with new ideas. Finally, people will vote for something rather than against something. A hallmark of federal politics. Don't vote x because y might get elected.

Competition amongst existing entrants but potentially new entrants has the potential to improve representation and responsiveness in new ways that we are currently unfamiliar with.


Maximizing choice

Allow me to develop a market analogy in relation to voting. One of the great things about the market is that the majority does not rule.

I don't have to buy shoes that everyone else likes. I buy the shoes that I like. If 5% or 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. The minority should have its say.

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

It is not possible to have a referendum on each issue to extend our preferences – but by reforming the voting system, we can prevent half the population's preference from not being represented at all.

Dividing a country or province into ridings is one way to represent voters – but it is not the only … a list of system gives you more options…

For starters, you can still vote for the party of your preference on the list even though you may not like that same party's local candidate. Or, you can vote for a strong local independent and still ensure your party has representation.

There may have been a time when this country was more homogeneous and unsophisticated such that we were content brokering our differences within the confines of a few large parties…

But this is no longer the reality ... Contemporary Canada and its provinces are characterized by diversity and complexity … increasingly, people are no longer prepared to simply yield to the machinations of party structures. Indeed, the organization I represent is a case in point.

Whatever reluctance Canadians may have had in the past, today there is no good reason why Canadians in any part of the country should resist a political system that encourages and reflects society's multiplicity of views.

Legislatures should speak for the people, not just the ruling party of the day…

To do otherwise is to abandon accountability.


Criticism #1 – the instability, nothing gets done under coalition or minority governments argument

Well, the cynical side of me says "great"… governments "getting things done" under strong majorities have brought us sponsorship, patronage, high taxes, and the list goes on…

It is important to understand that coalition governments are not minority governments as we have in Ottawa right now. Coalition governments are the rule in most of the world – including NZ and Germany – where MMP exists. They are politically and economically stable countries.

Arend Lijphart in his book "Patterns of Democracy" studying 36 democracies found that management of the economy doesn't need a strong hand…it needs a steady hand…pr and coalition governments are better able to provide steady, centrist policy making. This compares favorably to the policy lurch of F.P.T.P systems where elections often produce dramatic shifts in policy that are both frequent and abrupt…

This is not to say definitively that pr governments are more economically stable or better economic decision makers … but it is to say that the idea that MMP means economic instability, paralyzed government, is not born by the evidence.

It is interesting to me though that this concern is even raised. I note that since 1978 you've had only one election – 1996 – where one party did not earn the support of a majority of voters. The only difference being with a switch to MMP would be that the majority would not be over-rewarded in the legislature.


Criticism #2 – party control

Many have suggested the idea of party lists grants too much power to the parties, party bosses, etc.

Even if that were true: so what?

If a party keeps its process for the party lists secret, puts up poor candidates, or conducts its process in a way you don't approve of: don't vote for them.

Again, it's like a market transaction. If you like Wal-Mart's prices, but don't like their service – you have a choice to make – the same goes with voting.

Under MMP, parties will be even more keenly aware that they have to earn support and the likely scenario is one that appeals broadly to the electorate. To do otherwise is not in their best interests and voters will judge accordingly.

Of course there is a great irony in this because one of the prime motivators in advancing a change in the voting system is precisely because of excessive power by parties and party bosses who control decisions from behind closed doors.

Diffuse artificial majorities and you diffuse the power of party bosses and insiders.

Look, parties choose candidates now at the local level. A similar process will no doubt develop for list seats.

I do concede that there are other forms of voting that diffuse the power of parties even more – but given the choice between MMP as proposed here and the status quo – there's no question which system will keep party bosses in check.

If this proposal were beneficial to the parties there certainly would not be a 60% threshold requirement in your referendum with only half the polling places that are normally available ...

This same thing happened to us in BC ...

And the reason is simple: this recommendation was not created by the politicians. It was created by islanders in an arms length process led by judge Carruthers who traveled the province and forwarded a recommendation after consideration ... Not unlike the citizens assembly process we had in BC.


Conclusion

No emerging democracy on the planet in the last 50 years has their eye toward Canada and said … yep … that's the system we need here. All of these emerging democracies have chosen voting systems that are inclusive, provide choice, a diversity of representation, and the ability to ensure a check on the executive branch of government.

I read a history of electoral reform in PEI – and it's noteworthy how changes come about with the passage of time. In 1773 only adult male Protestants could vote, 27 years later Catholic men were given that right, and so it expanded until full universal suffrage was achieved in 1963.

Now again in 2005 the opportunity exists to modernize democracy.

One month outside of our referendum in BC – 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% overall. The Campbell government – with 46% of the vote could not ignore the result – a second vote in 2008.

Accountability stemming from voting reform is most needed in Ottawa…but that will not happen unless the provinces…like BC, like New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and PEI lead the way.

No. Changing the voting system won't solve every ill and frustration of government- unresponsiveness, broken promises, lack of accountability here or across Canada.

But it will – by definition -- change the rules and incentives inherent in the status quo.

Governments will place obstacles and many will fear change…but be bold. Ultimately if MMP does not work you can change back to what you have now. But while you can move back, it is unlikely you will be able to move forward unless you vote yes on November 28th. Make history PEI. Lead the country!

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you here today.

By: Troy Lanigan
Posted: November 14, 2005
Topic: Federal

Contact the regional director Gregory Thomas for further information.

Type: Related

Join Us   |   Donate