December 2001
Finding New Ways to Vote
by Nick Loenen
In his new book, The Friendly Dictatorship, long-time political observer Jeffrey Simpson finds that our undemocratic voting system contributes to the excessive concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and the lack of an effective parliamentary check on those powers. He is not alone in making that observation. John Stuart Mill predicted as early as the 1850s that mass, extra parliamentary parties would follow the universal franchise, that such parties would rob MPs of their independence, and that without such independence, the Westminster model of parliament cannot place an effective check on the powers of the executive. He was overjoyed when he learned of Thomas Hare's invention—a new voting system. Mill believed that changing the voting system held the potential to give MPs a measure of independence from party control.
Sir Sandford Fleming, of Greenwich time fame, made the same argument in an address entitled On the Rectification of Parliament, which he gave in Toronto in 1894. He, too, thought that our first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system was the primary reason why the powers of the PM were growing at the expense of parliament.
FPTP translates a minority of the vote into a majority of the seats. In Canada, it is this feature, more than any other, which fuels the concentration of power at the top.
The essence of democracy is that power is dispersed and diffused. Most democracies world-wide use voting systems that translate 40 percent of the vote into 40 percent of the powers of government (Loenen, pp. 179-80). Such systems lead to the politics of inclusion, partnership, negotiation, and coalition building. Just as in the US congressional system where no legislative measure can be adopted without extensive negotiation, likewise a more proportional voting system will give our parliament a similar and significant legislative function. With such a system in place, no single party will control the House of Commons, an no one leader will control the Standing and Special committees.
As an antidote to our "friendly dictatorship," Jeffrey Simpson supports some form of proportional representation for Senate elections, but not for the House of Commons. This is unfortunate, because the problems to which Simpson points cannot be addressed, in my view, except through a different system for electing MPs.
First, some ground rules. First, it is unhelpful to talk about proportional representation (PR) as though it is a particular voting system. PR is the principle that unites a whole family of voting systems. The principle is that a party's seat-share should relatively equal its vote-share. No system attains this with mathematical exactness: systems are more or less proportional.
Second, voting systems do not come ready-made, off the shelf. We need a made-in-Canada solution. A new voting system must take into account our unique geography, political history, and culture. In particular, Canadians need to agree on what we expect from our voting system and design one to meet those objectives. Fair Voting BC suggests the following objectives:
- Broad proportionality (a party's power should reflect more closely that party's popular support, but stop short of pure proportional representation)
- Meaningful choice (voting should not be constrained by vote splitting or fear of wasting one's vote)
- Stable government (no proliferation of parties)
- Significant local representation (voters should have a local MP)
- Less party discipline (to check the powers of the executive requires that MPs enjoy a measure of independence)
Such objectives enjoy widespread support and could be attained through a more proportional voting system.
Now a word about what Simpson terms proportional representation's biggest danger (p. 216). He fears that proportional representation will institutionalize and legitimize Canada's diversity. He credits FPTP for providing an incentive to form Canada-wide political parties, and that such parties provide an important brokerage function.
The counter argument is as follows. A more proportional voting system would lead to more, not less brokerage, compromise, and bridging of differences. Instead of finding consensus before the election within the confines of partisan politics, under proportional representation, compromise, negotiation, and consensus would characterize our governance between elections. Permanent coalition government would be less adversarial, more cooperative, consensual, and far less hierarchical than the government we have now. It would provide the opportunity for all political interests to have a say, even though not all would have their way.
There is a mistaken assumption that Israel's voting system leads to instability. If it wasn't for that country's PR voting system instability would be greater, not less. Imagine that the new parliament for Northern Ireland would be elected under FPTP, and that either the Catholic or Protestant factions could have 100 percent of the powers of government on a minority of the vote. Similarly, would Quebec not be better served under a more proportional system, one that forced federalists and separatists to work together to govern? Under FPTP, the separatists, who have about 40 percent of the votes, are either totally in control or totally excluded from government, neither of which is healthy.
Simpson wants our diversity to be bridged before the election within the parties, but why not aim to make governance after the election a more communal undertaking? Can anyone doubt that Ontario carries an undue amount of influence in the governance of Canada because a Liberal vote there is three times more powerful than a Liberal vote in Western Canada? Canadian unity demands governing structures that are inclusive. Inducing parties to be inclusive is important, but making government inclusive is more important. Countries with deep divisions and diversities are much better governed under coalitions than under majorities manufactured by FPTP. Examples include Switzerland, South Africa, and Belgium.
Simpson holds that because Canada is such a diverse country it cannot risk coalition government. It is precisely because Canada is diverse that it demands coalitions.
Simpson fears PR's potential to balkanize Canada. This concern is a central Canadian one. In the West, people know Canada is balkanized and they search for institutional reforms to give them power in government commensurate with their population. A more proportional voting system might deliver what Preston Manning promised when he rallied support under the banner "the West wants in." The United Alternative objective can be obtained through a more proportional voting system that unites us after elections, not before, and that unites us around governing, not party politics.
Finally, a word about the solutions Simpson offers. He looks for government that is effective, accountable, and representative. He suggests that FPTP is weak on accountability and representation, and that PR would not be effective. Simpson's suggested remedy is the Alternative Vote and an elected Senate.
The Alternative Vote (AV), colloquially known as the Preferential Ballot, is probably the best system when a single position needs to be filled from a diverse range of candidates. But in a general, parliamentary election Canadians need to fill 301 seats, and choose a government. If parliament is to reflect the electorate's political interests, each interest should be able to capture its proportionate share of seats. AV does not do that any better than FPTP. AV would ensure that the people get the MP they want, but it does nothing to ensure they get the government they want.
Since AV produces a House of Commons that is no more representative than the one we currently have, all that is left of Simpson's solution to making parliament more representative is Senate reform. Is that not exchanging stones for bread? Changing the voting system is nearly impossible, but changing the Senate is unthinkable.
Simpson's book is a significant milestone along the road to a more democratic, and representative voting system. It draws a link between our "democratic deficit" and the voting system, thus making a case for changing the voting system. The book will contribute to the debate about which voting system is best for Canada. That debate has barely begun.
References
Simpson, Jeffrey (2001). The Friendly Dictatorship, Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Ltd.
Loenen, Nick (1997). Citizenship and Democracy. Dundurn Press.
Nick Loenen (mail@fairvotingbc.com) is a founding Director of Fair Voting BC (web site: www.fairvotingbc.com), a citizens’ organization that promotes a more democratic voting system. He is a former Richmond City Councillor and MLA.
info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.