Another look at electoral reform

There are two common fallacies that need to be avoided when working in public policy. The first is the belief that “it is old, therefore it is better.” The second is the belief that “it is new, therefore it is better.” While tradition and novelty both have their attraction, there is no substitute for a more rigorous approach to issues. This is especially true with regard to the issue of electoral reform.

Many of the defenders of the current Single Member Plurality system, to give the textbook name to the “First-Past-the-Post” manner by which our MPs are currently selected, point to our inherited electoral tradition as its main defence. Likewise, many proponents of alternate electoral systems, such as a Single Transferable Vote (STV) or Proportional Representation (PR), emphasize the novelty or “more modern” style of these systems as the chief selling point.

Regardless of the system that is championed, it must be acknowledged that the voting decision at the individual level is more complex and nuanced than is commonly thought. The perceptions of the party leaders, local candidates and the policies promoted or critiqued by the parties are taken into account with a variety of other variables, such as media consumption, the influence of neighbours or contact with campaign volunteers, before many voters arrive at a decision.

Rather than deal with this complexity, many try to simplify voter motivations and decisions. Often, this simplification can be misleading, especially when there is a superficial validity that gives these views the appearance of truth.

A good example drawn from the recent election outcome, and one that is often raised by proponents of electoral reform, is the claim that “60 percent of Canadians voted against Stephen Harper” in the recent election. This assumes that the decision to vote for other parties was motivated solely by dislike of the Conservative Leader or his party.

Following this misguided logic, are we then to assume that 70 percent of voters are “against” the New Democrats, that 80 percent of voters are “against” the Liberals and that 96 percent are “against” the Green Party? The underlying theme of this critique is that all of our political parties - and not just the one seated on the Government benches - lack the legitimacy and authority to serve in our Parliament.

Not only does this type of thinking do a disservice to our political parties, it is a perversion of the voting process and our political culture. As anyone who has gone to a ballot box knows, you cast a vote “for” a party or candidate, not “against” one. Therefore, a vote should be interpreted a positive choice rather than a negative one.

A more careful and thoughtful analysis of voting behaviour would dismiss arguments for electoral reform that are driven by superficiality or the desire for a different electoral result.

Some people want to “fix” the electoral process the way that some “fix” horse-races or how others “fix” their pets. They either want an outcome that reflects their own choice or, failing that, neuters the victor. This may satisfy the ardent partisan but it is not a sound basis for electoral reform.

There are many strengths to the “First-Past-the-Post” method of selecting MPs, just as there are many weaknesses in PR and STV systems.

A strength of our current system is that it allows new voices to enter Parliament but encourages political parties to adopt more moderate positions to obtain the broad support of the electorate in order to form government.

Although it took several attempts for Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to win a seat in the House of Commons, she was finally able to do so. Given the Green Party call for PR, it is perhaps an irony that she would have been denied a seat in Parliament under that system, which requires a party to obtain five percent of votes nationally before becoming eligible to be represented in the House. 

As for its moderating influence, the “First-Past-the-Post” system has this effect on all parties. The New Democrats, for example, no longer call for the nationalization of Canadian banks. Neither does the Conservative Party insist on the privatization of CBC Television.

While some may complain that our electoral system drives parties into the “mushy middle”, it is also true that the system encourages parties who take a national rather than a regional perspective. Both the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois have had their day in the House of Commons but, like the Progressive and Social Credit parties before them, their parties were relatively short-lived and replaced by parties that, in Preston Manning’s phrase, “think big.”

If we were to ask Canadians what their priorities would be for electoral reform, they would express a desire for a system that reduces the influence of money on electoral outcomes and increase the accountability of MPs to their constituents. Further, they would want to reinforce the ability of MPs to represent local concerns and reduce the dominance of central party offices.

All of these goals would be better achieved under our current system than with either a PR or STV system. In fact, moving to either of these systems is more likely to aggravate the problems with diversity of representation, cynicism and voter turnout that currently afflict our political system.

Our electoral system can be improved. Rather than indulging the fallacies of tradition or novelty, we need to understand what Canadians really want out of the electoral process.

- 30 -

Originally published in The Hill Times, May 23, 2011