Author: CuriosityCat

CuriosityCat: Electoral Reform: Will it be set up to fail?

So say many commentators, included failed MP candidate Craig Scott. There are three lines of attack on the Liberal Party promise of “electoral reform” during the election.

Critics are rushing to frame the electoral reform debate by setting parameters which will restrict the right of elected MPs to decide on an alternative to our current archaic system.
The Three Lines of Attack:
The first line of attack is that the promise was of electoral reform, but did not guarantee that our first past the post system of electing our MPs would be replaced by either a proportional representation or a ranked ballot system. The implication is that the reform part of the promise will be diluted in the interests of the Liberal Party, and not of the millions of voters who voted for significant electoralreform when they bypassed the Conservative, Green and NDP parties to vote for Liberal candidates.
The second line of attack is that the Liberals will use their majority of MPs in the House to ram through by a majority vote of whipped Liberal MPs an electoral system that favours the Liberal Party, such as the single transferable vote system favoured by Justin Trudeau.
The third line of attack is that the MPs in the House do NOT have the legitimate political or moral right to change our electoral system from the current FPTP system to another, without a referendum agreed to by a majority of voters. Implicit in this line of attack is an attempt to rewrite the October 19 election results by giving the supporters of the Conservative Party (just over 30% in that election) a backdoor veto on any change to the FPTP system. The means to give this veto, is to have as a requirement that a certain high percentage vote of ELIGIBLE voters must approve the replacement system, and not just a simple majority of 50% plus 1 of voters actually VOTING in the referendum.  Setting such a high bar, coupled with the lack of active support by provincial governments, has ensured the failure of electoral reform on a provincial level.
My recommendations on what to do:
My recommendations are:
1.      For the terms of reference of the all-party parliamentary committee to require it to study the matter, and then to present AT LEAST two alternatives to the House (other than the FPTP system), for the House to decide upon. The committee could present a third system, should it so decide.
2.     That the House be asked to choose TWO ALTERNATIVES to the current FPTP system, to be presented to the House (or a referendum – see below) to choose the winning one.
3.     That if the House is to choose, the choice be a free vote choice by all MPs, by secret written ballot, with a simple majority of those MPs (50% plus 1) voting, choosing our new system.
4.     That if the two choices chosen by free vote of all MPs are to be presented to voters in a referendum, that the referendum require a winner to be selected from these two choices by a simple majority of those casting votes in the referendum (50% plus 1 vote). In this case, there will NOT be a minimum percentage vote requirement of all ELIGIBLE voters: that issue was settled by the recent election.
Is there enough time to do this?
Some are arguing that the Liberal Government will have to extend the 18 months to a longer period, because of the amount of work to be done, as Mark Gollom of CBC News reports:

While it may not seem like one of his more pressing issues, Trudeau has said he would introduce legislation on voting reform within 18 months of forming a government, based on the recommendations of an all-party parliamentary committee to study alternative voting systems, including proportional representation and ranked ballots.

That timeframe may be overly ambitious, suggests David McLaughlin, who was deputy minister to the New Brunswick Commission on Legislative Democracy…

McLaughlin figures it would take at least a year to conduct that kind of a review, with a countrywide referendum possibly following in the second year. And that doesn’t include the time it would take to actually pass the legislation.

But a change to Canada’s voting system does not necessarily require any constitutional considerations — only an amendment to the Canada Elections Act through Parliament.

Gollom also quotes Pilon on how to test if the Trudeau government is setting the electoral reform exercise up to fail:
“I think that would tell us how committed [Trudeau] is to it. Because if he goes the referendum route, it pretty much says he wants it to fail,” said York University political science professor Dennis Pilon, an expert in electoral reform.
The Favoured Trudeau Method would result in a Liberal advantage:
As Gollom reports:

Trudeau has indicated his support for a ranked ballot system, where voters pick the candidates on a ballot in order of preference. 

In this system, all the No. 1 choices are added up. If a candidate has a majority after the tally, they are declared the winner. If not, the candidate with the lowest vote total is knocked off, and their votes for other candidates transferred based on the ranking preferences.  A winner is declared when a candidate finally reaches a majority.

There are other systems open to us:

Many political scientists seem keenest on the mixed member proportional (MMP) system, like they have in Germany and New Zealand, which combines proportional representation with single member ridings. Voters would be asked to vote twice: for the candidate and for the party. So if a party won 20 per cent of the vote, but its candidates only won 15 per cent, the party would top up its representation in the House with extra MPs. 

There are different ways that could be done, but if the extra MPs are drawn from party lists, some argue it could create a two-class system of representatives — those who were actually voted in by the public and those chosen by the party.

Enter Nanos the Numbers Man:
Stuart Parker in Rabble.ca spells out the impact of ranked ballots (instant runoff voting is another name for this system of electing MPs):
If the Liberals’ official policy for voting reform, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) were in effect, we would see a very different result — — one that magnified the inequalities of our archaic first-past-the-post (FPTP) system — according to Nanos Research’s polling of voters’ second choices in its final pre-election poll.
The Liberal Party would have gained an additional 22 seats, rising to 206 seats; the Conservatives would lose 23 seats, falling to 76; the NDP would do unusually well for a third party, rising to 50, while the Bloc would lose half its caucus, falling to five MPs and the Greens would keep their one seat.
Just as IRV magnifies the disproportionality of our current winner-take-all system, converting the Liberals’ 39.5 per cent of the vote into 61 per cent of the seats, instead of the 54 per cent our current system does, it also magnifies regional inequalities.

Not only would IRV insure that the NDP and Conservatives had no Atlantic MPs, it would also reduce these parties’ representation throughout English Canada.

Just what is the all-party parliamentary committee to do?
The parliamentary committee will consult experts and others:
At a minimum, a thorough Parliamentary committee study of the assigned electoral topics would necessarily involve testimony of experts (who can be counted on to offer conflicting advice) and comparative examinations of electoral system proposals or actual changes in other Westminster-model parliamentary countries (the United Kingdom and New Zealand come readily to mind.
What kind of a referendum (if any) will be required?
This is the way John Courtney describes this issue in the LSE:
Some will argue that only a countrywide referendum will confer “legitimacy” on the move. Others will dispute that claim by asserting that the referendums held by three provinces have set no precedent for Ottawa to follow and that, in the final analysis, Parliament is master of its own electoral rules.
Do we need a referendum to make our electoral change “legitimate”?
I do not believe a referendum is needed, given that the three opposition parties clearly indicated that this was the last FPTP electoral system we would have.
The Liberal Party also clearly indicated that an all-party parliamentary committee of MPs would research the subject and make recommendations to the House, with legislation being passed within 18 months (that is, by April 2017).
This means the Liberals have the moral, political and legal right to have this all-party committee of MPS make recommendations to the House, with MPs deciding by a simple majority vote in the House, what course to adopt.
And this means that the Liberal Party, if it whips the vote, can choose whatever system of electing our MPs it wishes to, including a choice of any alternatives proposed by the all-party parliamentary committee of MPs, or a variation of any such alternatives, or, indeed, any other system the party chooses.
Justin Trudeau has publicly committed that the Liberal government will allow more free votes in the House, with the requirement that the Liberal MPs will be whipped to ensure that the programs set out in the party’s election program are passed by Liberal MPs (as well as “traditional confidence matters” and matters pertaining to “our shared values and the protections guaranteed by the Charter”).
However, this allows Trudeau to decide to give Liberal MPs a free vote on any alternative electoral systems tabled before the House for the consideration by MPs after the all-party parliamentary committee has presented its recommendations.
The Liberal Party election platform does NOT favour any type of electoral system – it does want an examination of, amongst others, proportional representation and single transferable votes. So Liberal MPs are not bound to choose one of the other.
And that brings us back to my recommendations, set out above.
Continue reading

CuriosityCat: Election 2015: Fare thee well, Canada!

Fare thee well

Goodbye, Mr. Sourpuss.

Hello, Mr. Sunshine.
Yesterday 68% of Canadian voters sent a message to politicians: Canada has had enough of sleazy Harperism.
Now we have MPs elected from the Liberal Party, NDP and Green parties with the mandate to scrap the undemocratic First Past the Post System of electing our MPs, and replace it forthwith – within 18 months – with a new system where every vote counts, in time for the next election; to remedy our democratic deficits; to restore civility to our Parliament; to take the muzzles off our elected MPs and allow them to represent the voters who sent them to Ottawa; and to modernize our infrastructures.
Congratulations, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair!
And Justin, please help us make Canada greater.
Now it’s time for CuriosityCat to lay down the pen.
Fare thee well, Canada!
Continue reading

CuriosityCat: Be a part of History & win your Bragging Rights by Voting on Monday

When you vote on Monday, you will earn Bragging Rights for your part in one of the most historical events in Canadian history. In years to come, you will be able to hold your head high and tell your friends, relatives, colleagues and strangers that YOU voted in the election that:

©     Exciting: It was the most exciting election for years, flipping this way and that way for week after week, during the longest campaign in living history;
©    Pink Slip: Gave Stephen Harper permission to step down as prime minister, and, should he wish to, as an MP;
©     Gazillions of Volunteers: It was run by three very competent and well organized national parties, which had attracted hundreds of thousands of new members and volunteers, and funded largely by small donations from supporters, rather than large ones from corporations;
©     Said No to American-Style Politics: Most Canadians used it to turn their backs on the use in our country of the deceptive, divisive, slogan-driven, personal attack style of electioneering found in the US, in favour of a more decent, more issue-driven and more inclusive Canadian style.
©    Killed FPTP: It ended the ancient First Past the Post (FPTP) system of electing our MPs,  and elected a strong majority of MPs from the NDP and Liberal Party who are committed to a new, more democratic way to select our MPs, where every vote counts.
©     Kickstarted a massive increase in those voting: The new system to replace our old FPTP system of electing our MPs will make the 10 million Canadians (40% of the 26 million voters) who don’t vote, keener to vote in elections, because their voices will be heard in Parliament for the first time in our history. Their votes will not be wasted, but will be counted.
Please talk to your friends about their chance to join you in getting Bragging Rights by voting on Monday. Share a copy of this post on your own social media, and ask them to share it with their friends.
And then vote on Monday so as to make the above things happen.
Continue reading

CuriosityCat: Vive la revolution: Why Liberal and NDP supporters will decide how to vote despite their leaders

The Great Canadian 2015 Revolution

The Harper government has, during its four years of majority government, managed to persuade millions of Canadians that they have to vote in a different way in this election. Harper managed to grab power by cementing his conservative base, and using wedge politics to open the gap between the split opposition groups.

The Law of Unintended Consequences then stepped in. Men propose, the gods dispose …
Voters watched in dismay as the Harper regime proceeded in a very systematic way to implement their hidden agenda of removing any vestige of liberal thought or action from Canadian public life. Many such steps were taken stealthily, out of sight of the public; but many were upfront and clearly visible to all.
Harper decided to concentrate on his core supporters and rule that way, disregarding the 60% plus who had different political views and values. His core-only-and-damn-the-torpedoes strategy worked brilliantly, but then something unexpected happened.
When the leading elite of the two main opposition parties refused to be serious about doing something to mend the divisions between them, and to cooperate electorally before the coming election, millions of Canadians decided to do what their party leaders would not do.
It started with a few voices in the wilderness crying out for something new to be tried in the 2015 election, to prevent Harper governing for another four years and damaging our fragile democracy even more.
Soon these voices were joined by others, and now they have become the dominant chorus in Canadian life. Those who wanted a different outcome in the 2015 election hit upon a framing of the public debate which is proving to be the dominant one in the election: Change. Supporters of both the NDP and Liberal Party could agree that a change of government – anybody but Harper – was better than Harper remaining as prime minister.
That settled the Ballot Box question, which is: It was Time for a Change.
The past nine months or so have been devoted to discussions amongst LPC and NDP supporters – in social media, in the mainstream media, and amongst their friends and family members – about HOW to effect such Change.
At first mainstream media and political commentators participated in the dominant public discussion taking place, but they did so through the prisms of past experience. This meant that most of them spoke of conventional responses (coalition agreement between the two parties, allowing MPs from both to share cabinet posts in a combined government). Mulcair was in favour of such a formal coalition and publicly indicated willingness to consider it, even before the campaign began.
Justin Trudeau and his core advisors also considered the question of a pre-election electoral cooperation and discussion of a formal coalition. Despite the overwhelming desire of the vast majority of LPC supporters for such an agreement, Trudeau decided to throw the dice and nix it.
But the pressure for a Change was irresistible, and this led Trudeau, followed by Mulcair, to announce publicly that if Harper won a minority government, they would not prop him up. Never, ever. That sealed Harper’s fate, Mulcair and Trudeau thought.
But millions of ordinary voters were not sure.
There was – and still is – a possibility that Harper could win a majority government. His strength lies in his greater support amongst older voters, 75% of whom actually go to the polling booths to vote. The LPC and NDP have more support among younger voters, but these supporters do not take the time to actually vote in anything like the same proportions.
So the public discourse of How to effect The Change continued, much to Harper’s dismay and the surprise of both Mulcair and Trudeau.
And in the past two months a collective decision was made by millions of voters: they would take the election into their own hands, and Make it Happen. The 2015 election morphed into a public uprising – a very Canadian, muted and respectful revolution. The People decided to march to their own drums.
In doing this, the mass march brushed aside the leaders of the three major parties. On October 19 the People will decide How to effect The Change. A huge proportion (40%!) of supporters of the LPC and the NDP have decided to ignore their party leaders and vote so as to ensure that The Change takes place on October 19.
The People have decided to remedy the split between the NDP and LPC that the leaders of those two parties were unable or unwilling to remedy. The victory in the October 19 election will therefore belong to The People, more than to the leaders and leadership elites of the NDP and LPC.
Vox Populi will be heard, loud and clear, across the country, around 7pm October 19.
The recent Forum poll illustrates just how successful this vox populi has been, as these quotes show:
One fifth of past Conservatives now voting Liberal
One fifth of those who voted Conservative in 2011 will vote Liberal this time (18%), while one quarter of 2011 New Democrats will also vote Liberal (25%).
One-in-six past Liberals will vote NDP (15%). This represents a shift from previous polls, where past Liberals voting NDP exceeded those voting the other way.
Very few past Liberals or New Democrats will vote for the Conservatives this time.
Core Conservatives most committed, switching Liberals and New Democrats less so
Close to 8-in-10 Conservative voters say they are strong supporters of their party (78%), but this is only characteristic of about 6-in-10 Liberals (58%) or New Democrats (60%).
This is because many of these voters come from each other’s parties.
3-in-10 says vote could change before election
Three-in-ten voters have not yet made their choice final (29%) and these are much more likely to be Liberals (33%) and New Democrats (34%) than Conservatives (14%). This confirms the remaining core of Conservative voters is a very committed group, while Liberal and New Democratic voters are open to voting strategically.
4-in-10 Liberals, New Democrats are voting strategically
In total, just more than a quarter of voters say they are voting for “the party that can defeat the government” (28%), rather than voting for “the party they believe in” (64%), but this increases to 4-in-10 among Liberals (39%) and New Democrats (41%).
Liberals, Conservatives equally likely to be seen as victors
Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are expected to win the election (35% each) while the NDP is no longer a contender (15%). While this tends to be a trailing measure, it may be an indication of potential growth in the Liberal vote.
So, the primary Ballot Box Question (Time for a Change) will be answered by a huge majority voting Yes; and the secondary Ballot Box Question (How to Effect The Change), will be decided in some 30 to 40 ridings, by supporters of the two opposition parties, deciding to put country ahead of party just this once.
And the vast bulk of the Canadian electorate agree with the public commitments of Mulcair and Trudeau that this will be the last election in Canada to be held on the first past the post (FPTP) system. And they will expect, within 18 months (that is, by April 2017), that the new government will have passed legislation to Make it Happen.
A very Canadian revolution, driven by collective disgust at Harper’s tactics, and ending with a result that is in the interests of the greater number of Canadians.
Vive la révolution!
Continue reading

CuriosityCat: My Last Blog Post

Deep Throat says Farewell Curiosity Cat says Farewell It’s been fun, but my last blog post as CuriosityCat will appear on October 20. In recent years my primary purpose in political blogging was to try to add my two cents worth towards achieving meaningful electoral change in Canada, to replace

Continue reading