In the federal election last October the Liberal Party stated, "We are committed to ensuring
that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the
first-past-the-post voting system. We will convene an all-party Parliamentary
committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots,
proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting. This
committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of
forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral
reform" . This date for introducing
legislation is now just 13 months away.
The Government has a clear
mandate and duty to “make every vote
count.” This is especially clear since
three parties representing over 2/3 of the electorate campaigned on that same
principle, and a majority of Canadians have endorsed that view in opinion poll
after opinion poll. As a professor of
political science who has been following this subject for 30 years, I have
become a strong believer in having a mild dose of improved proportionality, as
a way of improving voter turnout, improving public policy, better representing
diversity, and reducing the exacerbation of regional cleavages by the electoral
system.
What is not clear, however, is that the government has a
mandate to enact any particular voting system that it wants in accordance with the regular
parliamentary process. That is because
of the clear conflict of interest that exists: the danger that the Liberals may
try to enact a system that is most favourable to themselves. Justin likes the ranked
ballot; it might look like self-dealing if lo and behold the final piece of
legislation just happens to accord with Justin Trudeau’s preferences. ) This is
also a logical point: if our winner- take-all system is so bad because it gives
all the marbles to one party that only got 40% of the vote, why should that
party be able to use that very same flawed mandate to change the system?
These difficulties largely explain why the Parliamentary
Committee on Electoral reform hasn’t
been named yet. The very composition of that Committee (Liberal majority?) and
its frame of reference (is legislation to be approved by free vote majority of the House of Commons? A super-majority?)
are bones of contention. But that doesn’t mean that the Conservative
Party is right to demand a referendum.
There is no constitutional nor legal requirement for a referendum, and I
for one am glad that there isn ‘t, because a referendum would risk throwing the
general mandate baby out with the specific mandate bath-water. But I do believe that a special process is
needed—either 2/3 of a free vote in the House of Commons, or a referendum after
two elections, or both. And it might
not be a bad idea to change the usual rules concerning the composition and
decision-making process of the Parliamentary Committee, either.
