The challenge of Electoral Reform

No one said that democracy was supposed to be simple. Or easy.

As every candidate currently on the campaign trail can tell you, being a front-line participant in the election process has numerous and unexpected challenges. Local campaign volunteers also try to cope with the almost unscaleable mountain of tasks that need to be accomplished within the short campaign period traditional to Canadian elections. Even Elections Canada, one of the most respected and efficient electoral institutions in the world, has major challenges in organizing the staff, managing voters lists and coordinating the operation of hundreds of polling stations in the 308 ridings across our country.

The relationship between electors and the elected is never clearer than at election time. Just as aspiring candidates and parties are asking for support, voters want to know what will be accomplished by supporting one candidate over another.

The decision to vote for one candidate or another is not as clear-cut as some may want to believe. There are the merits of the various candidates. The candidate’s party and party leader play an important role in considering a decision, especially when it comes to the policies they promote and their perceived ability to deliver on what they promise. Other factors, such as the competitiveness of the preferred party or the attributes of the other parties, play a role. In all, determining how to vote is a complex and nuanced process for most individuals.

Elections also bring forward a discussion on the possibilities for electoral reform.  It is very difficult, if not impossible, to design an electoral system that can reflect the complexity of a voter’s choice.

Our current system, called Single Member Plurality in the textbooks and commonly referred to as “First-Past-the Post”, has evolved along with our institutions of democratic self-government.

There are those who feel that both our institutions and the way that we select our representatives to these institutions need to change in a fundamental way.

If we were to ask Canadians what they would like to see in a reformed electoral system, one that leads to the best possible representation in Parliament, they would quickly identify a number of priorities that should be included in a process of reform.

The first is that they want to have a dialogue with their representatives, and specifically with those in power, that extends beyond Election Day. They want to be sure that those who are elected are accountable to those who elected them – the voters.

Voters also want the opportunity to be heard. Whether it is the opportunity to discuss and issue or request assistance from a local representative, or to have the concerns of the community voiced in the national forum, voters must have a way to contribute their input on how decisions are made.

Electoral reform also needs to look at the issue of campaign financing. While many voters feel that the ability to raise money from a broad base of donors is part of the democratic process, there is a concern that money, especially large donations from small groups, has an impact on the impartiality of the recipients.

Access to money is a factor in determining the outcomes of elections. It is critical in the success of candidates in the riding nomination process and it certainly key to the ability to run for the party leadership.

It is important to note that the ability of money to determine the outcome of a local election increases with the size of the riding, both in terms of geography and the overall number of voters. In a relatively compact riding with a smaller number of electors, voters are more likely to know the candidates, either personally or by their reputations (good, bad or indifferent). Money, especially in terms of advertising, paid staff and technology, has a lesser impact on the ability to sway voters than the personal actions of, and interactions with, the local candidates. Local volunteers and party activists are also more influential in smaller ridings.

However, as a riding increases in size, money becomes a more important factor and the “connectedness” of the local candidate becomes less important. It becomes more important to find a “star” candidate, who may or may not have a local connection. In a large riding, it becomes critical to have the funds to purchase advertising, conduct telephone canvassing, or undertake other campaign activities. Local volunteers are still needed, but the chief strategic roles in the local campaign become filled by paid staff.

Just as there is a concern about the undue influence of money in the electoral process, there is an ongoing concern about the independence of Members of Parliament to represent the needs and concerns of their constituents.

Although the evils of party discipline and caucus solidarity are overstated, there is a concern that the independence of MPs is compromised under a political regime that emphasizes party loyalty and conformity. The increasing sophistication of political tactics and public advocacy (as well as an omnivorous media) places different demands and stresses on the MP as they balance the demands of both constituency and party.

Any process of electoral reform needs to address all of these above-mentioned issues at the same time. To be a success, any change to our electoral system needs to preserve the accountability of elected officials to their voters, allow local voices to be heard, restrict the influence of money on electoral outcomes, and preserve the independence of elected members.

Some people offer Proportional Representation (PR) as an option for electoral reform. Unfortunately, PR has the affect of eliminating both the local accountability of elected officials to the voters and the ability of local voices to be heard. Because PR deals with larger regions than the single-member constituencies we are more familiar with, it increases the influence of money over electoral outcomes. Finally, because legislators are chosen purely on the basis of party affiliation, the independence of these officials is non-existent. On these four factors alone, PR fails the challenge of positive electoral reform.

Regardless of the model that is offered, PR may be proportional but it is not representation.

- 30 -

Originally published in The Telegraph-Journal, April 23, 2011.