Any politician can change a law. It takes a great politician to make sure that change stays changed. If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wants to change the way Canadians elect their leaders he has to do the hard work required to make it a lasting change.

Every Canadian must have the opportunity to vote on electoral reform in a national referendum.

A referendum is the harder but better road to reform. Prime Minister Trudeau is theoretically able to whip the votes necessary to arbitrarily change the law. It would, however, make it harder to keep the change changed.

New Zealand did the hard work when it reformed its electoral system.

In 1992, New Zealand held a referendum that asked two questions. First, do you want to retain the current first-past-the-post system or change the electoral system? Second, what kind of new system would you prefer: preferential voting; mixed member proportional; supplementary member; or, single transferable vote? Nearly 85 per cent voted for change and 71 per cent voted for a mixed member proportional system.

It’s worth pausing at this point. Nobody should feel bad if they don’t know the differences between preferential voting and a supplementary member system. This is not common knowledge. In fact, and this is written with the greatest of affection, anyone who does know the difference is a certifiable political nerd.

Therein lies the genius of New Zealand’s harder but better road to electoral reform: it allowed voters to endorse change without immediately getting entangled in the inevitably devilish details. In other words, the process let New Zealanders consider their options and form an opinion.

In 1993, New Zealand held a second referendum. It asked voters to choose between the status quo first-past-the-post system and a mixed member proportional system. Nearly 54 per cent voted for the mixed member proportional system. In the next election, New Zealanders voted for both a local candidate and a national party – the local winner was elected and additional party candidates were added so that each party’s share of seats reflected the national vote.

In 2011, New Zealand held another referendum and 56 per cent supported keeping the new system.

The Liberals say they can impose electoral reform without a referendum. This, of course, raises inevitable accusations that they’ll tilt the system in their favour. And that raises another question: why not ask the voters?

Those opposed to a referendum say electoral reform is too complicated for voters. They point to referendums in British Columbia, Ontario and Prince Edward Island where reforms were rejected. They view a referendum as a losing strategy for reform.

That’s like the Maple Leafs saying that playing hockey isn’t the best way to win the Stanley Cup just because they haven’t won for a while.

Further, consider the consequences of moving forward without a referendum. Canadians will be forced to vote in a system they don’t fully understand and had no direct role in choosing. It would be like making an old geezer use a smartphone – the new fangled gadget might get thrown out a window.

If Canadians aren’t asked for their thoughts on electoral reform via a referendum, an election will be their only opportunity to vent and if they’re unhappy they’ll have to throw the government out. The reforms would then be reversed – probably permanently. Electoral reform is too important to run that risk.

Prime Minister Trudeau needs to make sure any changes to the electoral system stay changed by doing the hard work required to earn a seal of approval from Canadians through a national referendum.