WHEREAS voter participation is a generally acknowledged necessity for democracy to work effectively, voter turnout in Canadian Federal Elections has been in a slow decline for decades;
WHEREAS the “First-past-the-post” method of electing Members of Parliament has been heavily criticized for not accurately reflecting the true desires of Canadian voters, and in response other political parties are advocating for changes to the voting system;
WHEREAS proportional representation is advocated by the NDP and the Green party because it most benefits them, rather than the wishes of Canadians to simply have some form of electoral reform;
WHEREAS truly proportional systems of electing representatives has proven to lead to perpetual minority governments, and an increase in small single-issue political parties;
WHEREAS those Members of Parliament appointed through proportional representation in European countries have no need to assist constituents, and they need to be most loyal to their party and spend their time fundraising for the party in order to maintain their position on the party list for future elections;
WHEREAS the Liberal Party of Canada already handles contested candidate nominations by having one ballot where each candidate is marked 1, 2, or 3;
WHEREAS Australia has successfully adapted the “Alternative Vote” system, which allows voters to rank their candidate choice 1, 2, or 3;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the current “first past the post” system, at the Electoral District level, be replaced by a Preferential Voting system, such that the Member of Parliament be selected by 50% plus 1 of the voters in each Electoral District;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the current Elections Canada formula for financial support to political parties be maintained based on the first choice cast on a ballot.
Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario)
Contrary to the spirit of this resolution, I do not believe that the preferential voting and proportional representation are mutually exclusive. I think the idea of cooperating with another political party in a way representative of the votes to each party is perfectly noble and should be encouraged.
I think preferential vote would allow less distortions in the general repartition of the seats after the uninominal election, which would reduce the problem of the additionnal MPs. I also think it could be feasible to have an electoral list which retake, as candidate of the proportional vote in the second column of the ballot, those which were the closer of 50%+1 in their own riding but lose the race. They would be more representative than some guys nominated for strange reasons.
I do not support this as it continues to champion an adversarial system of governance, with “winners” and no voice for the “losers”. Your say in the governance of our country should not depend on the neighbourhood you live in.
This is a very good resolution. Most Canadians know that there are serious problems with our first past the post system, but for years the only other alternative that has been discussed is some form of proportional representation. In my view proportional representation would be worse than first past the post since those members elected by proportional represention would be beholden to political parties not constituents. Preferential voting seems to work well in Australia and I am quite confident that it would well in Canada. If we look at the results of the last election it is unlikely that we would have a majority Conservative government if we had had perferential voting.
As I said before, I don’t think proportional vote is necessary incompatible with autonomous MPs. What about the idea to select the proportional MPs among the defeated candidates which were the closer of 50%+1 of the vote in their riding? That way, they would have some legitimity if by adventure they wanted to leave their party.
About the adversary system, I think all election is at the end an adversary system, but as far as I want more collaboration in our system, I will always agree to give to better represent the citizens’ choices.
I still agree with the goal of this motion and I think those who want to change the electoral system shouldn’t fight each other to implement their own solution and not the other one, especially when their ideas are compatible, like what I came to believe.
You mention Australia but left out the MANDATORY informed vote as a part of it, why? I’m 100% in favour of doing it the Australian way if it means that 100% of elligible votors have to vote and vote smart…
I totally agree in the implementation of a voting system like the Alternative vote as in Australia. This should be implemented as soon as possible.
As part of this the Liberal Party should also consider the following:
political party advertising between elections should be outlawed
- polls during the campaign period should be outlawed
- politicians who are elected to the HOC and then wish to change their party affiliations must resign and a by election called people of a riding must have some form of recalling a candidate and if that is successful a by election should be called to determine the new MP for that riding.
- all election promises must be presented to the Parliamentary Budget Office for independent costing BEFORE an election campaign starts. THE PBO will be responsible for publishing his analysis
-contempt of Parliament should be made a crime just like perjury is, where jail terms can be up to 14 years in prison. What happened in the last parliament was a complete joke.
- appoints to the judiciary should be done by a parliamentary committee and NOT the Prime Minister’s office
- an independent body should be set up investigate crimes against the Constitution
Anyone interested in the topic of electoral reform should read the book Gaming the Vote by William Poundstone. From his research the best system for creating the least “voter regret” is a rating system similar to that used by many websties. Voters would get the option to rate each candidate on a scale of 1-5. This way there is no fear of throwing away one’s vote to a party that will not win. I highly recommend the book and others by the same author.
I do not understand the logic that proportional representation leads to ignoring citizens. In fact, I believe it is quite the contrary, where representation and assistance is opened up to all MPs, or to a greater amount if a system based on provincial electoral districts and lists similar to what Belgium has is adopted. Further, the logic that proportional representation results in minority governments is severely flawed, and in fact often results in the contrary. Yes, no party is likely to receive a majority of seats under this system, but rather it encourages the formation of coalition governments in which the views of the majority of the population are represented in government – typically formed by parties that combined have a majority of seats.
As for the indication that a proportional system would harm the Liberal Party, that is laughable at best. The Liberal Party attracts voters in the centre to centre left of the spectrum, without having an extremely cohesive base in regards to party of second choice. The reality is that when the Liberal candidate is eliminated from the standing and their votes redistributed (which based on the last election, would be in most ridings) the votes would be redistributed to a whole variety of candidates that may not actually advance the Liberal Party’s position. On the other hand, a proportional representation system would allow voters to simply choose the LPC and impact the amount of seats the LPC is apportioned. That in turn would allow the LPC to have stand to negotiate in forming government in a coalition. Depending on the reality, the LPC would have a valid shot of being in government with both a centre left and centre right coalition partner. For example, based under the last electn and assuming a proportional representation system, it is fairly reasonable to say the LPC would be in government.
I too would like to see preferential voting AND proportional representation. Voter turnout is down. In my riding I continue to vote but in reality my vote doesn’t count. proportional representation would at least allow my vote to count in a small way.
This preferential voting system would be a very good way to start comprehensive electoral reform in Canada. It is perhaps a bit early to go for proportional representation, given the way this issue was so badly mishandled in the referenda in various provinces.
Should 2015 result in another minority Tory government, then the Liberal Party should insist upon having a preferential voting system passed into law (wihout any referendum) as the price for working with the other party/parties to replace the Tory government with a different government.
The NDP should find preferential voting acceptable in such a situation; and both parties can then consider at a later date what kind of proportional representation should be offered to Canadians in a properly funded, party-supported referendum.
This is a good start in remedying our democratitic deficit. I would prefer a more general resolution committing the Liberal Party of Canada to reforming our Parliament – something like this:
The Liberal Party is committed to the following principle:
We will give Canadians the most advanced democratic tools that any political party in any modern democracy can provide.
Unfortunately, none of the ridings have yet submitted such a resolution!
I hope this party is actually serious about electoral reform and addressing the ‘democratic deficit’ for real this time. What have we got to lose?
Get with the times. E-voting has to ramp up quickly. With it will come referendums as official (mood up to policy) numbers. Some form of proportional rep will surely follow.
FOR DISCUSSION: Should the Senate be changed to a proportional house, with the Commons to remain as is?
Thank you to those of you who are supporting this resolution. Please encourage others in your riding to log in and support this motion on Electoral Reform!
Ken Lister
President, Don Valley East
A few comments on the whereas clauses:
WHEREAS the “First-past-the-post” method of electing Members of Parliament has been heavily criticized for not accurately reflecting the true desires of Canadian voters, and in response other political parties are advocating for changes to the voting system;
—> This is also true of Alternative Vote. In a democracy, the right to representation belongs to all, the right to decide belongs to the majority . Alternative Vote does not determine the share of seats in the legislature, nor does it guarantee that every vote will translate into a seat (the right to representation). Hence it does not either guarantee that the party with the most seats will have the support of the majority (the right to decide). It merely eliminates vote splitting, at the expense of institutionalizing strategic voting (because with AV your last choice can always be a “strategic” vote).
WHEREAS proportional representation is advocated by the NDP and the Green party because it most benefits them, rather than the wishes of Canadians to simply have some form of electoral reform;
—> Every voter has the right to representation. Alternative Vote gives more power to the second choice of a riding. Right now, the most powerful second choice is the NDP, not the Liberals. So it AV does not help the Liberals.
WHEREAS truly proportional systems of electing representatives has proven to lead to perpetual minority governments, and an increase in small single-issue political parties;
—> Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland: they all have proportional representation and they are doing fine. Between 1945 and 1998, among 14 different western countries, there are only 3 countries that had more elections than Canada: New Zealand (with FPTP), Denmark (with party list) and Australia (with the AV system). Germany, Norway, Finland , Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden: all these countries have PR and had fewer elections. (Pilon, D. “The Politics of Voting” , p.64)
WHEREAS those Members of Parliament appointed through proportional representation in European countries have no need to assist constituents, and they need to be most loyal to their party and spend their time fundraising for the party in order to maintain their position on the party list for future elections;
—> This is mostly a question of how the list is made up, not of proportional representation itself. Single Transferable Vote, which does have lists,f becomes proportional at 5 seats / riding or more and under Mixed Member Proportional, the order of the list can be influenced by the public (“Open list” systems). Or you can have a “best looser” list where the list is made up of the best losers in first past the post contests. Or you can have regional lists rather than national lists.
I think this whereas clause over estimates the importance of geographic representation. Yes it is important in a large country as Canada, but does the Liberal voter in Calgary feel better represented by Stephen Harper from Calgary or Bob Rae from Toronto?
The debate on the system to adopt can become divisive and burdening. The LPC may want to consider instead in its policy: what is the consultative process to lead to electoral reform. New-Zealand successfully changed from FPTP to MMP after two referendums and one Royal Commission. The first referendum was on whether or not to keep FPTP or change to another system. The Royal Commission then set out to discuss which system was better, with much citizen involvement. This was actually the advantage over a Citizens Assembly: though it was great with the CA to put the citizen in charge of deciding and there was some outside input, it was mostly a jury deciding on its own. The Royal Commission actually led to more citizen involvement. The second referendum was on the proposed MMP. In November NZ will have a third referendum to see if they go back to FPTP, keep MMP or switch to AV or STV.
@Simon_Beaudoin I have a fairly similar system in mind myself, that combines the best of AV and PR in a hybrid system, or “double-ballot” if you will. And similarly, all 308 seats would be contested by exactly the same number of candidates as they are now.
The justifications for this proposal are as wrong as the proposal itself. Canada leads the world in the number of elections over the last 60 years. Preferenetial ballots (AV) wont change that.
Single member ridings give the MP a monopoly on delivering services as well as providing representation, so voters can’t boot out poor performers without voting for a party they don’t like. Using multimember constituencies makes MPs compete for your vote.
Most proportional systems allow for voters to rank candidates one way or another in multimember constituencies, so voters can both select the party and candidates they prefer. MMP, which has been proposed various times, also handles this.
In use AV has been shown to be generally worse than first past the post and it is it harder to administer.
This proposal should be rejected and replaced by one calling proportional representation. There’s are reason why it’s used by most nations in the world. It works.
While I do support the idea that current Elections Canada formula for financial support to political parties be maintained based on the first choice cast on a ballot, I believe that the preferential system be Single-Transferable Vote in multi-seat constituencies like in Irelan. I believe that the Alternative Vote like that used in Australia would be just as unpredictable as proportional representation but without any of the accuracy.
I would oppose using the Alternative Vote system, particularly given the difficulties Australians seem to have with it. I would support Single-Transferable Vote for small multi-seat constituencies of equal populations. STV is used in Ireland and has the advantages of both Proportional Representation and the Alternative Vote.
I’m all for electoral reform, but based on some of the comments here, in the Liberal forum, I have to conclude that people here view this (and Canadians would be right in viewing it) as an effort to cement the place of the Liberals as the natural governing party of Canada, since.. the closest thing to any other party must be the centrist party, right? I.e., second votes must logically largely go to the Liberals.
The way to show the party is not a bunch of sore losers is to commit to genuine electoral reform. That means *not Alternative Vote*, but rather proportional representation.
But here, even better: why not let the people decide, in a referendum process like that held in New Zealand. The first referendum (preferably preceded by a truly honest and well publicized information campaign to explain the pros and cons of the different systems without shilling for one or the other) has two questions:
1. Do you want to keep the current FPTP system or change to another one?
2. If we were to choose to move to another system, which one of these five would you prefer?
a) Straight proportional, b) Mixed-member proportional (could include AV for the single-member constituencies), c) Single Transferrable vote, d) Parallel (like a multimember proportional constituency added to x number of single member FPTP or AV constituencies; only semi-proportional), or (if you insist on including it) e) Alternative vote (not in any way proportional)
Then, after Referendum 1 ascertains the desire of voters to have electoral reform *and* the system the largest number of them prefer, we can have referendum #2 (after another honest and highly publicized information campaign) to choose between the current system and the system most popular with those who want reform.
The Kiwis were able to do this one, and they got the desired result of electoral reform, to a system chosen by the voters. If the voters truly choose alternative vote, so be it. At least the process will have been democratic. Then nobody can accuse the Liberals of sore loser backroom tactics.
However, if the Liberals go through with the above proposed undemocratic process to try to put in another non-proportional electoral system, which seems like it’s designed to benefit the Liberal party, I predict the effort will backfire, and deservedly so.
I agree. The Proportional Representation system is not as good as the Preferential Ballot systems; because single seat constituencies provide for greater accountability of individual MPs.
I think the reference to minority government and coalitions in this resolution is unnecessary. There is nothing wrong with minority or coalition government. All MPs must work constructively for the benefit of all Canadians, and must make minorities and coalitions viable.
Also; I do not think constructive the reference to the notion that the NDP and Green would be better served by Proportional Representation. The Parties will win seats in proportion to the popular vote just as well with the Preferential ballot system. (In a three party system a centre party might dominate the Preferential Ballot regardless of popular preference; but Canada is not a three party system.)
@Gary Dale Mixed Member systems do not work effectively. Edmonton Alberta has the only remaining mixed member system at the city council level. They are looking to get rid of it as constituents complained that councillors easily passed them back and forth, with nobody wanting to help any case that involved any work. Councillors only took easy cases and gave ‘friendly referals’ to their counterparts for anything that looked difficult or impossible.
Other Edmonton wards had one councillor trying to take the media spotlight and pass off other work to their counterpart.
Proportional representation is best only if one believes the main problem we need to fix is more representation of certain groups (greens, women, or first nations). It does not address people who don’t like either choice much, but know of one candidate/party they do not like. It does not ensure every vote counts, unless you use a system of complete 100% proportional representation, which of course has many flaws that you are aware of.
Apparently there is an agreement that the FPTP must go. Also there is an agreement that a move toward a parliament representing better the voters’ true opinions is necessary. Therefore I suggest amending the proposed resolution accordingly: Indicate the inadequacy of FPTP and propose changing it to a more representative one. The list of possibilities could be also introduced but we may not want to present a preference. The suggestion of having two referendums to select a better system seems the best solution.
I’m not against preferential voting but I think we would be better served using APPROVAL VOTING. The proposal doesn’t mention which type of preferential balloting we are proposing. Do we count all of the second place votes or do we just count the second place votes of the candidate that comes in last and then the second and third place votes of the candidate that comes in second last, and so on until someone achieves a majority? I would like to see clarification on that question.
APPROVAL VOTING is simply allowing voters to vote for more than one candidate in a single representative constituency. It eliminates vote splitting because if someone wants to vote Liberal and NDP they can. If they want to vote Liberal, NDP and Green they can. If they want to vote Liberal, NDP, Green and Conservative they can.
APPROVAL VOTING also means that we will have greater competition for incumbent candidates in safe ridings. You can have two or three Liberals running in the same riding without fear of splitting the Liberal vote and allowing another party to win. Most hard core Liberals would vote for all three Liberals and the three Liberal candidates would have to attract the support of regular voters in order to win.
APPROVAL VOTING means that winning candidates need to attract widespread support from not only their political base but also from those people who are normally predisposed to voting for another party. Most of the time the party that wins a majority would have more than a majority of support among voters. Anyone who has filled out a customer survey from Home Depot has used APPROVAL VOTING. Home Depot asks you to list all of the hardware stores that you have visited in the past 6 months, they don’t ask you to rate them. When they see that 60% of their customers also shop at Canadian Tire and 50% also shop at Lowes and 40% also shop at Pro Hardware then it gives them very valuable information of the competitors their customers approve of.
APPROVAL VOTING is a voting method that anyone can understand. It doesn’t dramatically change the outcome of elections but rather gives those elections a much greater stamp of legitimacy. The greater stamp of legitimacy is what will restore faith in our democratic institutions.
I sorry, but reading many of the comments here and the resolves above gives me great reason to believe much of which is being said about the Liberal Party of Canada being completely irrelevant seems to be very true.
What does it matter how we tabulate votes if we don’t give the voter anything to vote for?
Why should I as someone who wants to be politically active , seriously consider joining a political party, who says they are sincerely interested in representing the Canadian people, and yet has as their second most important issue electoral reform. Nadine. You stated that Canada is interested in this. No they aren’t! They’re interested in having a say in the agenda of this Country. Meaning what policies each of the Party’s have that affects their daily lives and if they were voted for, what is the chance of them being implemented.
If we can’t seem to score any points with the Canadian people. Maybe we should be taking responsibility for this. By implementing ways to improve our game. Instead of wasting our time trying to find ways to change the rules. Even if we did get rid of some disparities, it wouldn’t change anything if we still weren’t successful at playing the game.
It can’t be that you believe there is “nothing to vote for”. I suppose anyone can believe anything they like but to say that this absolves you from participating in politics in some way is naive.
Our current system (first past the post) is deeply flawed and does not allow for true minority governments. True minority governments happen when the elected minority must have representation from the opposition party in their cabinet. The Canadian system at present does not allow for that.
A system of proportional representation would at least get you closer to having your voice and ideas represented in our system. You do know of course that last election more people voted Liberal than Conservative across Canada? Yet look at we have as a Prime Minister.
That’s not true – any member of the legislature may be a part of the cabinet. Think the national unity government in great Britain. Or the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition before the PM subverted the confidence vote. The current PM just never needed anybody from the other side b/c the opposition has been very weak electorally.
I would encourage everyone to read Julien Lamarche’s post below as it addresses quite a few factual errors in the whereas clauses of this resolution which I really feel need to be addressed. Well constructed
@Robert Halter
I feel that that is a bit of a straw-man argument. We can address electoral reform and other issues that people care about in our platform, not just one or the other. We need to make our platform more reflective of the wishes of all Canadians, but we need to make Parliament that way too.
@George Apostol
I agree completely. Personally, I think there should be a referendum on two questions asking 1) if our ballots should allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference and 2) if the number of seats a party receives in parliament should be proportional to the number of votes it receives in the election.
If people answer yes to #1 and #2 we get single transferable vote. If people answer yes to only #1 then we get alternative vote, as in this resolution. If people answer yes to only #2, then we get an open-list MMP. If people answer no to both then we stick with things as is.
Give people a question with clear language and let them decide for themselves.
@Ken Lister
You are mistaken. Edmonton used block voting with two-member wards. That’s actually a less proportional system than first past the post. In mixed member proportional, you still elect only a single local MP – the difference is that losing candidates’ votes get pooled and used to “top up” party standings at a regional/nation level.
STV has ridings typically 3-7 MPs, with each MP being elected by that fraction (ie 1/3 to 1/7th) of the electorate. Experience indicates that because the STV elections are so competitive the MPs tend to be extremely responsive to local concerns. In fact, STV in Ireland and Malta have both been criticized for creating hyper-local politics, where the MPs spend too much time focusing on local issues and too little time focusing on national issues. That sounds like an embarrassment of riches to me….
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an historic achievement of the Liberal Party, defines Canada as a free and democratic society and promises its citizens equal treatment under the law.
At present Liberal voters have only half the number of MPs in Ottawa that equal votes and proportional representation would provide — clearly an undemocratic and probably an unconstitutional electoral outcome.
Yet the advocates of this resolution are unable to deploy the word “democracy.” Instead ask the Liberal Party to advocate a “new” voting system under which, just as before, about half of all Canadians who bother to vote will be unable to elect a representative to Ottawa.
How can we imagine that this smug, illiberal proposal, which leaves the democratic deficit untouched, will inspire the people our party needs to attract and activate?
Similarly, how will it help us reach understandings with the Greens and New Democrats with whom we will need to cooperate in some fashion if we are to remove the Harper Conservatives from office in 2015?
Let’s adopt resolutions which will help us climb out of the pit, and reject resolutions like this one which presume easy impending victory — and thus dig us closer to oblivion.
John Deverell
Pickering-Scarborough East
The Liberal Party should commit to holding a National Referendum on electoral reform. Although most, if not all, voters want electoral reform, opinions as to the form of Preferential Ballot or Proportional Representation are diverse. On this issue voters will appreciate an opportunity to vote directly in a National Referendum for electoral reform.
Stanley, in what year do you propose that this plebiscite be held?
Proportional Representation has already been put on the ballot in Ontario and BC in the past 5 years, and was defeated. This is the time to ask Canadians about a different system.
@Stanley Rachham: Holding a referendum and offering many systems at the same time would confuse voters as they would have to learn about many systems at once so all would likely be defeated. It was quite difficult to educate voters in BC and Ontario exactly how MMP would work when that was on the ballot by itself, so having it and other systems on a referendum will confuse the issue further.
@Ralf: I think elections Canada will tell you that there were more votes cast in Canada for the Cons than for us.
@John Deverell: the authors of this resolution make no assumption about an easy impending victory after adopting our resolution. Perhaps you should reread it and clarify where you see it suggesting an ‘easy impending victory’. Victory for our party will take proposals such as this one adopted, along with other policies on a wide variety of issues that are RELEVANT to Canadians. And anyone who has worked in campaigns knows they are never easy nor will they be.
what you say about Ontario & BC is true, HOWEVER, let’s be fair about evaluating Proportional Representation. In Ontario, a Citizens Advisory Committee had some time (was it a yr or more?) to study differing variations of PR in other countries, they travelled throughout the province to talk to voters and in the end, recommended that some form of PR be advanced. But when this new idea was posed to Ontario voters in a referendum in the provincial election, they had had only the duration of the election campaign – ABOUT ONE MONTH – to learn about PR and its implications. Sorry, but that is not enough time to learn about new concepts. I do believe PR is the way to go.
Ken – you’re forgetting that STV also passed with 58% of the vote in BC in 2005. You’re also forgetting that both the Ontario and BC Liberals won majority governments while promising a referendum on electoral reform – a promise they followed through on. A referendum on AV just went down in flames too in the UK, demonstrating that getting AV through is not necessarily any easier than getting PR through.
I do agree with you that a big part of the issue is the challenge of educating on what exactly “alternative vote”, “STV” and “MMP” mean. To address that, I propose asking the following questions instead:
1. Do you support allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference if they so choose?
2. Should the number of seats a party receives be proportional to the number of votes it receives?
The wording could use some work, but the intend is to ask the public the broad and straightforward questions that really matter rather than getting bogged down in the details. Those details can be decided after the fact by a non-partisan group of experts and voted on afterwords in parliament once a mandate has been received from the people.
My remark was sarcastic. The Liberal Party by itself is unlikely to be in a position to change the Canada Elections Act within any reasonably forseeable future, and the proposed AV is unlikely to appeal to any other political party.
As western Liberals can remind us, the present Canadian electoral system regularly and predictably denies about half the voters their right to elect a representative. So does AV. The ridiculous idea that one legislator can properly represent all citizens is the artifact of a pre-democratic era. It is not democratic and, mercifully, has never been explicitly endorsed in principle by Canadian voters.
The referenda in PEI, BC and Ontario, aside from the fact that they were designed to fail, pitted the winner-take-all system against, not the principle of equal votes, but against particular underadvertised and poorly understood PR models.
If we conclude from this, as I do not, that the majority voted against representative democracy, where are Liberals to go from there? To make it all consistent should the Liberal Party resolve that the word “democracy” be removed from the Charter?
The future of the Liberal Party, if it is to have one, lies not in less democracy but in more.
Canadians need equal effective votes — and for its own survival and integrity the Liberal Party needs Canadians to have equal effective votes. We should resolve and act accordingly.
John Deverell
Pickering-Scarborough East
authors note: this resolution was written and approved by the LPCO prior to the May 2011 election. Since then the Conservatives have proposed eliminating the vote subsidies. Therefore, the last Be It Resolved of our resolution may be dropped on the convention floor.
I think in general the wording of this resolution as it is now is an example of everything that’s gone wrong for the Liberal party.
Electoral reform is an issue that I believe very strongly in, and alternative vote is a system that I feel is demonstrably superior to the current first past the post system. However, I (and I feel most other supporters of electoral reform) am only lukewarm on AV as it does nothing to address the disproportionality and real dysfunction of the current system.
By embracing electoral reform, we stand to gain the support of fans of electoral reform, and risk losing the support of its opponents. That’s a perfectly fine risk to take in my opinion, but by only half-embracing electoral reform in supporting an only marginally better system in a motion full of lies and half truths that seem designed to anger proponents of electoral reform, we will anger everyone and please no one.
This is endemic to Liberal policies in recent years. We’ve moved too far to the left on issues the right cares about, and to far to the right on issues the left cares about, and in the process we’ve lost more than half of our voters. This needs to stop. We need the courage and wisdom to embrace good causes fully.
Make Voting “Mandatory” in Canada with a
“None-of-the-following” as the FIRST option on the ballot.
40% did not vote in the last election –> We have an “unknown” variable. When 40% do Not vote, We do Not have democracy.
Before we make any changes to our Electoral system –> PR, Approval V, Alternate V,IRV, Preferential V…
we need to solve the “unknown” variable.
That should be the “first” thing.
In my view, the “Mandatory Vote” is the most efficient and effective way of solving the “unknown variable.”
- “democracy depends upon the active participation of its citizens” (1)
- “to re-establish electoral participation as a civic duty in our society.” (1) Bill S-22
- if we had had Mandatory voting since 1924 like Australia,
it would already be part of our culture. Australia has 96% turnout. You get a $20 fine if you don’t vote.
Let’s solve the “unknown variable” Let’s include the 40% who did not vote and get a democracy before we decide to make changes.
Thank you for considering Mandatory Voting before making any changes to our Electoral system.
References:
http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=168&art=1140
“uninformed citizens” are compelled to serve on juries with potentially more serious consequences. Elections Canada has worked diligently to inform and educate voters, and these efforts will continue as an important element in a mandatory voting system.
Finally, mandatory voting would mean that voting will again become a civic duty in Canada, but not a very demanding one. Thanks to safeguards to ensure voter awareness, equality of access and the possibility of exercising one’s right to vote, the bill will establish not only our right, but also our civic obligation to take part in the democratic process.
Mandatory voting … The next step will be mandatory voting for a sole party?
I disagree with you, Amanda. I consider voting as a moral duty that shouldn’t be imposed. I would prefer to see a clear “abstention” (or blank vote) choice on my voting paper, since the main problem is for me that not enough ideas have the opportunity to be defended in our parliement. This is why I support the idea of a proportionnal vote, but I also support the preferential vote as it give a better picture of what the citizens really wanted when they voted.
I really think some people don’t vote because they aren’t interested, and that ideally all the people would be interested, but making this mandatory would only push a crowd of unsure and possibly misguided people. I do not insult their intelligence. I’m only saying that if they want to vote, it’s because an issue (or many issues) is important enough to get them support one candidate or one party for this candidate to adress the situation by a law.
My main concern is that it would cease to be a choice. I’m all for a better participation in elections, but it has to be sincere, not forced.
I should have said I entirely agree with Amanda Powell..voting shd be compulsory thou you could mark your ballot as “not any of the candidates”.
I entirely agree.
To those of you who are supporting this resolution, I invite you to support our resolution as well on Democratic Renewal (Resolution named Democratic Renewal under LPC Governance). Not only must we enhance and maximize our democracy through changes to our electoral system, we must also practice this commitment to democratic participation within our own Party. Please vote at: http://convention.liberal.ca/lpc-governance/18-democratic-renewal/ and for more information please visit http://www.lpcrenewal.ca .
have an independent process in place to ensure to that the consequences of legislation do not have any serious unintended effects–establishing such a pattern of neutral evalution by respected 3rd party would help ensure we are not governed on idealogical grounds but by ideaoligy that is grounded in fact
On this final day of voting, to those of you who are supporting this resolution, I invite you to support our resolution as well on Democratic Renewal (Resolution named Democratic Renewal under LPC Governance). Not only must we enhance and maximize our democracy through changes to our electoral system, we must also practice this commitment to democratic participation within our own Party. Please vote at: http://convention.liberal.ca/lpc-governance/18-democratic-renewal/ and for more information please visit http://www.lpcrenewal.ca .
I cannot vote on this resolution because I believe that AV does not address the issues. The problem with FPTP is brilliantly illustrated by the results of the May 2 election. 39.6% of the vote got Stephen Harper a majority. And he now touts that he has a “clear mandate from the Cdn people” to govern. That is laughable.
I tried to mention this in reply to another post, but I’m not sure if my comment uploaded. In Ontario, a Citizens Advisory Committee had some time (was it a yr or more?) to study differing variations of PR in other countries, they travelled throughout the province to talk to voters and in the end, recommended that some form of PR be advanced. But when this new idea was posed to Ontario voters in a referendum in the provincial election, they had had only the duration of the election campaign – ABOUT ONE MONTH – to learn about PR and its implications. Sorry, but that is not enough time to learn about new concepts. I do believe PR is the way to go.
PR can ensure that the greatest numbers of voters can feel that their vote has some meaning and that they can be heard. If that means that more Green Party members are in Parliament, that is fine. Same with any of the parties (even the fringe ones). At a minimum, a study of the varying forms of mixed member proportional voting must be studied.
Hear hear.
I think a far better resolution would be simply be:
Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada endorses the findings of and supports the implementation of proportional representation as described in the Law Commission of Canada’s “Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada.”
The report can be found here: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/J31-61-2004E.pdf
After all, we created the Law Commission for a reason. Maybe we should listen to what it had to say?
Alternative Vote (AV) is only as successful as it is in Australia because of mandatory voting. Without mandatory voting, incumbents will continue to benefit from voter suppression through negative advertising and creating wedge issues. Candidates will be forced to (gasp) campaign, debate, and come up with innovative and attractive ideas because the pool of potential voters will have nearly doubled. That’s the beauty of mandatory voting – it is a double edged sword that asks both citizens and parties to act politically responsible.
I have to disagree with this motion.
Yes, it’s recognized that First Past the Post voting systems do not reflect the will of the people in a multiparty country. But a Preferential Ballot system (aka IRV, or AV) is not the solution – it likewise does not reflect the will of the people in a multiparty country, and can in fact skew the will of the people just as badly as FPTP.
Preferential ballots are ideal when electing a single representative – a leader of a party, or mayor for example. But it is not suited to electing members from multiple constituencies. A PR system such as STV or MMP is much better for these situations, and if the Liberals are serious about reforming our electoral system, we should join most other nations that have acknowledged the inadequacies of winner-take-all systems, and instead put our support behind a proportional one.
For the writers of this resolution, who claim “proportional representation is advocated by the NDP and the Green party because it most benefis them”, it should be made clear that PR actually would have benefitted the *Liberals* more in the last election over AV (59 seats vs. 34; under AV, it’s likely the Liberals would have won less than 50 – see http://www.orphanedvoter.ca/interactive-tool/ ).
If we’re serious about reforming our democracy, it shouldn’t be about what system benefits Liberals, but about what system benefits *Canadians*. If we can’t accept that a PR system is a fairer system that would allow better representation of Canadians’ viewpoints than FPTP or AV, then I suspect many who have felt disenfranchised by our system will remain unmoved by the Liberal stance.
I have to disagree with this motion.
Yes, it’s recognized that First Past the Post voting systems do not reflect the will of the people in a multiparty country. But a Preferential Ballot system (aka IRV, or AV) is not the solution – it likewise does not reflect the will of the people in a multiparty country, and can in fact skew the will of the people just as badly as FPTP.
Preferential ballots are ideal when electing a single representative – a leader of a party, or mayor for example. But it is not suited to electing members from multiple constituencies. A PR system such as STV or MMP is much better for these situations, and if the Liberals are serious about reforming our electoral system, we should join most other nations that have acknowledged the inadequacies of winner-take-all systems, and instead put our support behind a proportional one.
For the writers of this resolution, who claim “proportional representation is advocated by the NDP and the Green party because it most benefits them”, it should be made clear that PR actually would have benefited the *Liberals* more in the last election over AV (59 seats vs. 34; under AV, it’s likely the Liberals would have won less than 50 – see http://www.orphanedvoter.ca/interactive-tool/ ).
If we’re serious about reforming our democracy, it shouldn’t be about what system benefits Liberals, but about what system benefits *Canadians*. If we can’t accept that a PR system is a fairer system that would allow better representation of Canadians’ viewpoints than FPTP or AV, then I suspect many who have felt disenfranchised by our system will remain unmoved by the Liberal stance.
To all the fans of Proportional Representation, please note:
PR can be combined with First Past the Post so that 75% of MP’s are elected by FPTP and the remaining 25% of seats are allocated based on PR, or gender or ethnicity. Whichever.
Similarly, Preferential Voting can also be combined with PR! Just because you support PR does not mean you need to oppose this. Give your heads a shake.
Let’s support the Preferential Voting resolution from the LPCS, and if you want to put forward a resolution next convention to go with it on Proportional Representation, be my guest. And you can ask me for my support and I won’t tell you that you can’t have your system and mine together.
Your point about proportionality and preferential voting not being mutual exclusive is completely valid though, and if you amended your motion to call for simultaneous referendums on each issue I would support it whole heartedly and enthusiastically. Also, if you amended your motion to call for a system that’s both preferential and proportional (either STV or MMP with AV aka AV+) I’d support it as well. With simply alternative vote as it is though I can’t.
It’s true that AV addresses some of the problems around vote-splitting and strategic voting, but at the same time it further clusters caucuses geographically (leading to a more Ontario-dominated Liberal party and a more Western-dominated CPC), it makes it harder for minorities to get elected, and it increases the tendency for politics to move towards a two party system. All of those are huge problems that endanger not just the Liberal party, but the welfare of our democracy as a whole. Yes, I know AV has performed roughly on par with FPTP in Australia – but that’s because they have a proportional Senate! That’s where their minority voices and geographic balance come from.
Moreover, I’d direct you to the BC elections of 1952 and 1953 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_general_election,_1953).
In the 1950s the Liberals and Conservatives brought in alternative vote for all the reasons you suggest here, except in this case it was the Liberals and Conservatives trying to block the CCF instead of the Liberals and NDP trying to block the Conservatives. Instead, the Liberals and Conservatives were both wiped out in results that were less proportional and less fair than the May 2 federal election.
If we had used alternative vote on May 2, it’s true that the Liberals would have done better and the results would have been fairer and more proportional overall. That was sheer chance, and to expect it to be repeated in 2015 or 2019 is short sighted. Instead of moving from one system that can produce bad results to another system that can produce bad results, why don’t we move to one that always produces fair results?
Nicely said.
Push for proportional representation first and foremost, not another broken system – otherwise we just look like we’re not being serious about addressing the real problem with our electoral system.
The implementation can be left to a commission to sort out. In the meantime, the Liberal party should push for the ideal of a government that properly reflects the voters’ intent.
Ken,
The first BIRT clause specifies a disproportional system by requiring one-member districts (an implication of the 50%+1 provision). Beyond that, you have 3 whereas clauses that rip into proportional representation with statements that are just untrue.
If your motion specifices a disproportional system and has baseless attacks against proportional representation, why would you expect fans of PR to support it?
In terms of waiting two years to express and vote on our views on proportional representation, I’d submit to you that a party that requires it’s members and donors to wait for years to get their voices heard is not a party that’s going to exist for very much longer.
The AV proposal is meant to get more votes for the Liberal Party. It’s my assumption that people who rank the Conservatives or NDP as a first preference will rank the Liberal candidate as the second choice.
Not on the resolutions: mandatory voting and proportional representation.
First mandatory voting would not get me to vote. I wouldn’t even pay the fine for not voting. Yes, I would go to jail. It looks like a lot of people would be going to jail.
Some form of proportional representation is needed so that voters will get more choice and better representation. Our current first past the post system is not democratic. That is why I choose not to vote. AV is no more democratic than FPTP. Both systems give power to one person in Ottawa. That person is the prime minister. Why should I support autocratic rule where Canada’s parliament becomes irrelevant.
Yes, voters in Ontario, BC, and PEI rejected forms of proportional representation. However, the rules of each referendum were designed so that the referendums would fail. Ontario and BC had 60 percent thresholds. They also designed referendum questions that were designed to give a negative response to proportional representation rather than give a Yes or No question to proportional representation. If such a referendum were proposed again using the same rules, I would not participate. If AV were proposed in a referendum, I would not participate.
This is a better alternative to the current system. The Riding system as it stands is anachronistic.
It could not be clearer that First-Past-the-Post is a failed system when more than 2 parties with significant voter support are involved. I will only support a party that honestly makes a serious attempt to replace this system for a more representative one. There are many valid points supporting different options such as proportional or the preferential voting system mentioned above, however, I will support the above because it will be far better than the current broken system. Canada needs many of its processes and institutions updated so that they are more democratic and better represent the people’s views/choices. I hope that the Liberal Party of Canada will seriously move forward to stop the erosion of what little democracy is left. Let this be one step forward in that direction.
Fellow Liberals
Our conversation on electoral reform has come to a time for decision in an arena all Canadian voters can see. Let’s get real.
Joyce Murray, Liberal leadership candidate, is saying (a) co-operate with other opposition parties as effectively as possible to change the government and ( b) appoint a royal commission to recommend the changes needed to create a democratic voting system for all Canadians.
The two items are intimately connected. If we intend to change the government in 2015 — and if we admit that we can’t do it by ourselves (surely the elections of 2006, 2008 and 2011 proved that) then our party needs some help from other opposition parties.
So, a rethink. Do we sincerely believe the general public is lusting for our policy — the preferential ballot? It guarantees that in many ridings half the voters will continue to elect nobody.
For Liberals to ask our new leader to sell that particular piece of undemocratic nonsense is unfair to the leader and potentially disastrous for the party.
.
In the alternative the other eight candidates, today, should catch up with Stephane Dion and Joyce Murray and demonstrate some political agility. They should renounce the preferential ballot in single member ridings and express an interest in equal effective votes and equal representation in Parliament for every Canadian citizen.
Those who find this democratic concept unthinkable shouldn’t be in the race.
One Liberal candidate, Joyce Murray, is clearly ahead of the curve on Liberal Party credibility, survival and effectiveness. She’s on the side of cross-party cooperation and representative democracy for Canadians.
That’s what third-party leaders do, especially if they place a very high priority on changing the government in 2015 as we all should. Joyce Murray is facing reality and articulating the obvious.
Pingback:
Pingback: