Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[ballz]

Canada is too big geographically and ideologically too diverse for proportional to work. Unlike a small scandenavian country where the geography is basically the same causing most places to face similar economic conditions, similar industries, etc, and where "right-wing" is barely to the right of "left-wing," we've got people that want universal childcare while some people want two-tiered or private healthcare, as well as 40% of country considered rural.

The differences in issues and ideologies between Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Fort McMurray, Alberta are pretty wide and deep. This is why we need MPs to represent our areas and our unique issues compared to other areas, and is also why the public finance system is much more decentralized than most places.

I'm not sure of the details of this single transferable vote system, but if it's anything like vote-trading, I want no part of it.

I'd like to see more analysis of a two-tiered vote system. The only problem I see is that it guarantees majority power which seems nice at the moment seeing the current string of minority governments, but I'm not sure I'd like a party that's only capable of winning 100 seats being granted majority power for 4 or 5 years.

 

[McG]

Fair enough - though her party draws a much larger share of the popular vote than any of those, and is probably a pretty good demonstration of why first-past-the-post isn't a great system - though I don't know that there's any better without reconciling ourselves to permanent minority governance and coalitions.  Not that I think that's necessarily a bad thing.

It may not be a great system, but it's the best going system, bar none. 

With "first past the post", locals vote for "their man", as it were, to represent them in Ottawa.  Now, I haven't had pot since the mid 80's, so no, I'm not high, and I have no delusions; however, the alternate is for proportional representation to have Jack, Iggy, Stephen et al select their cronies to sit for us.  ...

I'm a fan of the single transferable vote, myself, where voters rank candidates by preference, so if my first choice gets the lowest number of votes, he's kicked off the island and my vote then goes to my second choice.

I too like the transferable vote concept.  Additionally, for dense urban centers (with public transit) that are currently subdivided into multiple constituencies, I would propose the idea of larger multi-representative constituencies (ie: Toronto could be cut to half or one third as many constituencies but would still produce the same total number of MPs).

... we have another thread for this tangent though.  Must be time for a split.

 

[McG]

Split done ... and if anyone wants to jump back 6 years in time, it looks like we were proposing about the same things in Apr '05 as now.

 

[dapaterson]

The differences in issues and ideologies between Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Fort McMurray, Alberta are pretty wide and deep.

Well, given the accents you hear in the oil fields, I'm no so sure about that...

 

[GR66]

I'm also a big fan of the Single Transferable Vote.  It solves many of the problems of vote splitting and gives a much clearer mandate to our elected representatives.  No longer would you have a situation where a party that only gets 35% of the votes claiming to be the true voice of its constituents (even though the other 65% voted AGAINST them).

I'm not a fan however of the concept of multi-representative constituencies.  One representative per riding makes that individual much more directly accountable to the electorate that voted for them.  Having multiple representatives over a larger area (and therefore with more diverse needs possibly) weakens that direct accountability.  The same goes for proportional representation.  It's one of those things that SOUNDS quite reasonable on the surface but when you dig into the details I think actually does more harm than good to the democratic process.

The Senate is another can of worms.  I'm actually not in favour of a directly elected Senate.  I think it would dilute the power and authority of the House of Commons (after all...if you're a Senator elected by the people don't you have the same rights to speak for those people as an MP?).  Having a House and Senate competing with eachother to do the same things would weaken both.

I'd be much more in favour of making the Senate more effective and accountable in the legitimate role they do have by design...a House of Sober Second Thought.  Give them a 6 year term to serve (1/3 coming due every 2 years?) so that members that aren't fulfilling their duties can be removed.  Maybe a system for reviewing and approving appointments and vetting the qualifications of the candidates (possibly including a multi-party House committee, approval by the Province being represented or even a Referendum of the citizens in that province?).

I know that in the US the Senate is elected however they also have an appointed Cabinet which allows for developement and review of policy and legistation outside the focus of trying to get re-elected.  An EFFECTIVE and ACCOUNTABLE appointed Senate can actually fulfill a meaningful role.

 

[Saskboy]

GR66, I couldn't agree more on every point.

I just finished writing a paper on senate reform for one of my university courses and some (not all) of the academic literature suggested a couple inherent problems with an elected Senate.  The main one, quite simply was that by making the Senate elected, you duplicate the House of Commons and also duplicate the problems inherent with the House of Commons ( i.e. politicking, seeking undeserved credit, and avoiding due criticism in order to improve chances of being re-elected).  Further, what one would essentially create is something which has the potential to be even LESS responsive than it is now.  Imagine the size of the Constituencies necessary to elect senators, thus you would have fewer politicians within the Senate trying to represent the same population as the larger House of Commons.  Those large constituencies may also develop in a manner that does not acknowledge regional differences in culture, economy or geography which would render the job of any senator exceedingly difficult.

I believe that senators are most effective when they are appointed because it allows them to operate without fear of retaliation from disgruntled voters of certain blocs and without the need to tip toe around any of the regional or cultural divisions in Canada to garner favour.  It's the Senate's job to tell a government when it is being too ambitious in its attempt to pursue their agenda in Parliament. While it may not be a perfect a solution, at least senators can operate without the muzzle of party discipline.

Although, if the Senate was to become elected, as many have said the Constitutional reforms necessary to make that happen would be difficult to put through. E.R.'s solution is a fantastic one. That's probably the most effective use of conventions I've seen in my short time mucking about in politics.

Cheers.

Edit: Typo.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm afraid that I find an appointed legislature completely inconsistent with a modern liberal democracy. The Canadian people, just like their American, Australian, German and Indian confreres, are smart enough to elect the representatives they want; the people's representatives do not need to have "sober second thought" applied to their decisions - they didn't in 1867, either; the family compact and chateau clique were both put to bed in 1837, even if the constitution scribes in Whitehall didn't quite grasp that fact.

At the risk of repeating myself: a federal state needs a bicameral legislature: one chambre to represent the people on an equal basis and the other to represent the interests of the equal partners in the federation, the provinces. In 2011 we can trust Canadians to elect the members of both chambres.

 

[GR66]

I'm not sure that the American or Australian models are something we'd necessarily like to recreate here.  Some might argue that sacrificing "Effective" in order to obtain "Equal" and "Elected" would be a poor trade-off.

That's not to say that I'd be totally opposed to some form of elected Senate...just not a constituency based elected Senate with effectively the same mandate and powers as the House.  I think that model puts a brake on effective executive governance that is not reasonably offset by regional representation in the modern world.

Politics today is not the same as it was when either the Canadian or American (or Australian) bicameral systems were designed.  The age of instantaneous communication, dominance of political parties and strick party discipline in order undermine the originally intended system of regional representation and protection.  Members vote based on their party affiliation because modern electioneering is based almost exclusively on "branding", media management and centralized campaign control.  All these things make the representatives we elect largely beholden to their central party leadership.  Hardly a system to encourage members to think about their region over their party.  Is that any worse than a system where the Senators owe their position to direct appointment by the Prime Minister?  Nope.  However at least those Senators don't have to keep going back to be re-appointed thereby renewing their obligations to the leaders that got them in.  I just don't see the huge benefit of going through the huge political/constitutional screaming match that would exchange a poor system for a marginally less poor system.

An Australian-style Proportional Representation Single Transferrable Vote system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate) where members can directly elect Senators (either by selecting the party OR individual(s) they wish to elect) combined with a Senate that does not directly compete with the powers of the House (can't initiate taxation legislation, can delay but not defeat House money bills, etc?) would be something I could support.

A KEY part of that puzzle to my mind would however be to have the election of the Senators tied to PROVINCIAL as opposed to FEDERAL elections.  This elimination of the direct link between the various party candidates and the Federal political party apparatus (and leadership) would give the Senate a much more reasonable chance of honestly putting their Province's best interests ahead of the partisan politcal interests of the federal political parties.

 

[jwtg]

Politics today is not the same as it was when either the Canadian or American (or Australian) bicameral systems were designed.  The age of instantaneous communication, dominance of political parties and strick party discipline in order undermine the originally intended system of regional representation and protection.  Members vote based on their party affiliation because modern electioneering is based almost exclusively on "branding", media management and centralized campaign control.  All these things make the representatives we elect largely beholden to their central party leadership.  Hardly a system to encourage members to think about their region over their party.

Would it be unfair to say that political parties have ruined politics?

Sure, call it radical, but wouldn't it be nice if political parties disbanded and every candidate became independent?  No longer voting blue, red, orange, green, etc. but rather voting for individuals whose platforms would likely encompass the political stances of the parties we currently have without having the restriction of having to raise their hand because Harper, Iggy, Jack, etc. told them to.  Rather, they could raise their hands because their constituents told them to.

Obviously this is a speculative fiction, but I wouldn't cry if all the parties ceased to exist.  That would be great political reform (albeit with a significant logistical headache, and a dire need to determine a method of picking a PM/Caucus....).

You may say that I'm a dreamer......and you're right.  But where better to dream than a thread about political reform?

 

[a_majoor]

The American model prior to direct election of Senators is instructive:

The Congress is the house of the people, and elected directly to examine and legislate on day to day type issues and represent the rights of the people

The Senate was the house of the States, and Senators were elected by State legislatures to represent the rights of the States

The Executive is elected by the votes of an electoral college, which prevents or limits the ability of States with large populations to override the desires of smaller, less populous States by sheer weight of numbers.

Three different branches, representing three different constituencies and using three different voting systems.

Canada could model the Senate on the old US system where each Provincial legislature elects their Senators. A single long term would straddle the terms of office of Provincial legislatures so Senators might have to represent provinces with different governing parties than the ones that elected them, and the term limit would allow for fresh blood in the Upper Chamber.

A Canadian Electoral College would elect the GG, as the sort of Vice Regal Regency Edward Campbell has proposed in the past. The GG does have some fairly awesome reserve powers (as recent events have suggested; see coalition) so an elected Regent would have the legitimacy to wield these powers when so needed. The Regent would serve for a single, fairly long term to provide stability and to (sometimes) mentor new governments.

WRT disbanding political parties; parties are not mentioned in the constitutions of Canada, the US or the (unwritten) UK; they arose as people with common interests banded together. Some aspects of modern politcal parties should be changed, like tight party discipline or the centralized power of the PMO; non political changes should also be made IMO to reduce the power and influence of the permanent bureaucracy. How to go about this is hard to say, history shows the main way to make far reaching changes is a revolution or Civil War; I am not thinking we want to go there....

 

[dapaterson]

A KEY part of that puzzle to my mind would however be to have the election of the Senators tied to PROVINCIAL as opposed to FEDERAL elections.  This elimination of the direct link between the various party candidates and the Federal political party apparatus (and leadership) would give the Senate a much more reasonable chance of honestly putting their Province's best interests ahead of the partisan politcal interests of the federal political parties.

My thought exactly - I'd even be willing to let Senate terms bridge two provincial elections to provide some continuity - and perhaps limit senators for two such terms (which would run up to 20 years).

But turning the Senate into a "house of the provinces" to go along with the house of commons would increase federal legitimacy and cut out some of the whining premiers - as they would already have a national voice.


(Edit because I'm a horrible, horrible typist)

 

[GR66]

Would it be unfair to say that political parties have ruined politics?

Sure, call it radical, but wouldn't it be nice if political parties disbanded and every candidate became independent?  No longer voting blue, red, orange, green, etc. but rather voting for individuals whose platforms would likely encompass the political stances of the parties we currently have without having the restriction of having to raise their hand because Harper, Iggy, Jack, etc. told them to.  Rather, they could raise their hands because their constituents told them to.

Obviously this is a speculative fiction, but I wouldn't cry if all the parties ceased to exist.  That would be great political reform (albeit with a significant logistical headache, and a dire need to determine a method of picking a PM/Caucus....).

You may say that I'm a dreamer......and you're right.  But where better to dream than a thread about political reform?

Banning political parties wouldn't solve the problem since people of like mind will still block together to advance their collective interest.  However electoral expense reform could possible have an effect.  If there were no national level advertising or materials permitted and each local representative were required to foot the entire bill of spreading their word there would likely be a much more diverse message within each party (and electors would have to work a heck of a lot harder to become engaged in their local race).

That could be combined with other fairly simple changes like NOT having members seated in the house along party lines but rather geographically or just alphabetically to symbolically help eliminate the US vs THEM mindset of members.  More significantly the defeat of money bill could NOT be automatic confidence votes in the House.  Allow members to defeat any bill they don't like without automatically triggering the fall of the government.  This would give much more power to individual MP's within their own party.

 

[GR66]

My thought exactly - I'd even be willing to let Senate terms bridge two provincial elections to provide some continuity - and perhaps limit senators for two such terms (which would run up to 20 years).

But turning the Senate into a "house of the provinces" to go along with the house of commons would increase federal legitimacy and cut out some of the whining premiers - as they would already have a national voice.

A simplified version might be to just have half  of each Province's Senators elected at each provincial election (regardless of how long each Provincial government's term lasts).  Therefore when the political landscape changes more rapidly in a Province (indicated by more frequent elections) the Senate will turn over more quickly.  In more stable times Senatorial terms will be longer.

 

[a_majoor]

Cheers and applause:

http://fildebrandt.ca/2011/04/national-post-column-it’s-time-to-kick-the-politicians-off-electoral-welfare/

Published in the National Post and other Post Media outlets

When the Canadian Taxpayers Federation pulled its National Debt Clock in front of Parliament Hill last month, a formerly homeless man approached and stared in amazement. After a minute of staring at the massive, spinning clock, the man said, “I’ve lived on the street and it doesn’t take a lot of money to live. What the hell are politicians doing?” Before leaving, he added, “These guys need to get a job!”

Sometimes it takes someone from outside of the political system to make sense of things, and even though he was standing in front of Parliament, a formerly homeless man who now makes his own way is about as far outside of the Ottawa bubble as one can be.

And he was half right. Even though politicians do have a job, they and their respective parties still receive a generous welfare payout at taxpayer expense. This takes three forms: a $2-per-vote subsidy, costing taxpayers approximately $68-million since the last election; a 50% to 60% refund of election expenses costing taxpayers approximately $26-million per election; and, generous tax credits encouraging donations to political parties worth tens of millions more (the total figure of course ebbs and flows with each campaign). Each of these is a form of political welfare. They should all be scrapped.

Soon after winning re-election in the fall of 2008, the Conservatives moved to scrap the most egregious of these — the $2-per-vote subsidy. While a good move for taxpayers and a moral victory for democratic reform, the opposition parties immediately viewed the move as an attempt to take away their free lunch. Such was their anger that they quickly cobbled together a coalition to replace the Tories.

We all know how that turned out; but while the Tories stayed, so also did the per-vote subsidy.

Elections cost anywhere between $300- to $400-million, but such is the price of democracy. But while taxpayers picking up the bill for Elections Canada to set up polling stations is fair, forcing them to pick up the bill for partisan campaigns is not. Some voters claim to dislike attack ads, but when they are forced to pay for them out of their own pockets, they are complicit. Eliminating political welfare would make such dilemmas easier: “Don’t like attack ads? Don’t donate!” Nothing would force the parties to clean up their act faster than going after their bottom line.

Similarly, some voters are fatigued with having a fourth election in seven years. But losing “confidence” in a government is not the only thing that triggers an election. Having a flush war chest replenished regularly by Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer makes frequent, unnecessary elections an almost risk-free proposition for the parties. The dollars keep rolling in like clockwork. While party coffers are replenished between elections with the per-vote subsidy, the 50% to 60% refund of campaign expenses means that parties are flush again and ready to fund the next election campaign almost as soon as the ballots are counted.

Even if both the per-vote subsidy and the 50% to 60% campaign expense refunds were eliminated, parties would have little reason to fear. With a maximum 75% tax credit inducing donors to contribute, any party that cannot attract cash is likely not taken seriously by its own supporters. By contrast, donating to charities that provide services to those in need only qualifies you for a maximum 29% tax credit.

Put another way, from a tax perspective you are three times better off donating to the separatist Bloc Québécois than you would be if you gave the exact same amount to the Red Cross.

During the course of this election, Canada’s federal debt will increase by $3.3-billion. Canada’s next government will have tough choices to make. If it is to get spending under control and eliminate the deficit, it will have to cut. The first place it should start is with its own political pogey.

 

[McG]

With the 2011 election now over ...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110502/vote-split-110502/20110503?s_name=election2011

The first on what will be many stories about the vote split.  Once all the dust is settled, I shall be interested how many NDP wins against Con/Lib splits and how many Con wins against NDP/Lib splits occured.

One would think that movement to merge the NDP/Lib would make quite an impact in the split ridings in the next election, which thankfully won't be for a while.

NDP win?  Sure; at face value.  But with a dodgy caucus and a party with a majority of seats in Quebec, Layton has a lot of work to do to convince Canada that he isn't a left-wing version of Preston Manning.

We have lived through years where a split on the right kept the left-of-centre in majority power, and now we are at a point where a split on the left has put the right-of-centre in majority power.  What are the chances that the average Canadian will now be open to the idea of a transferable vote system?  Today, the majority of Canadians will preceive themselves as having been disadvantaged by a vote split at some point in time.

I'm not a fan however of the concept of multi-representative constituencies.  One representative per riding makes that individual much more directly accountable to the electorate that voted for them.  Having multiple representatives over a larger area (and therefore with more diverse needs possibly) weakens that direct accountability. 

Suggestions for multi-representative constituencies (at least, suggestions within this thread) have been to use these exclusively in dense urban areas.  This negates the concern of larger areas introducing greater diversity of needs.  In fact, I would imagine that any multi-member constituence would still be magnatudes smaller in size than any rural constituency in the country ... except maybe rural PEI.

 

[GR66]

Perhaps our new Conservative majority will open the opportunity for Senate reform to be revisited.  I however don't see PM Harper eager to do anything that would require opening up the Constitution.  Instead I'd look for more procedural-type changes for the selection of Senators.

I'd also love to see changes to our balloting system in elections to bring in a Single Transferable Ballot which would do away with any "problems" with vote splitting inherent in out First Past The Post system.  However, since the Conservatives basically owe their majority to the splits I don't see a huge political incentive to make any changes.  Ideology rarely trumps politics in our leaders (of any stripe).

The Globe & Mail recently had an article with various opinions on renewing our democracy...some interesting points (and some scary ones too)...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/how-to-redesign-a-tired-democracy/article2003072/

One suggestion that I'd never really given much thought to was a system of "Primaries" similar to the US for selecting candidates for elections.  I really have no idea if or how you could make it work when you don't have set election dates but on the surface it would seem like it has some potential. 

I'd also love to see a change to the voting system in the House where defeat of the government on a money bill does NOT automatically trigger the defeat of the Government.  It could TRIGGER an subsequent confidence vote, but not in itself defeat the Government.  This would give individual MP's the freedom to vote against their party on a particular Bill without fear of triggering an election.

 

[Infanteer]

I wonder how much the NDP will call for Proportional Representation now that it would mean they need to give a few of their seats up to the Liberals?

 

[vonGarvin]

I am an extremist zealot when it comes to opposing "proportional representation".  It would mean an unworkable country, in which appealing to the lowest common denominator would make us a laughing stock of a democracy.

I find it interesting that opponents to our "First Past the Post" (FPTP) system will utter such statements as "Only in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia do we have FPTP!"  Yes.  Nice.  Use the four most functional (least disfunctional?) democracies on the planet as a reason to NOT use that system which they use.  Our system offers fair representation, local representation and a functional (if not functioning) and somewhat stable government that allows us to get things done.  Things that really matter.

"60% voted against the conservatives, and they have a majority?  What a joke!" (or words to that effect) were muttered last night.  I could also offer that 60% voted *for* middle of the pack parties (conservative and Liberal) and some 35-40% voted for the far left.  Or I could say that a Conservative/NDP coalition got 70% of the vote, or I could say.....


For me, I would rather select the guy I send to Ottawa, rather than have some party hack being forced upon me based on numbers of votes.  (Arguably, however, sometimes party hacks and cronies are parachuted into ridings).  But the beauty is that when we have our current system, things like this happen, which would NEVER happen in proportional representation.

 

[jwtg]

This is faulty logic. 60% of Canadians voted for the BQ, Greens, Liberals, NDP and a few others, but they were never given an option to vote against anyone or anything. We do not have an electoral system that allows you (or me) to vote against the prime minister or Joe Blow - only for the candidate you prefer in your riding. Those, like Ms. Elizabeth May, who are looking to deny Prime Minister Harper's legitimacy will trot out the "60% voted against" argument but it is, at best, dishonest and it betrays an abysmal ignorance of the Constitution. Anyone who actually believes that "60% of Canadians voted against the Conservatives' is, clearly, way too stupid to vote, much less to be an MP.

If 60% voted against the Conservatives, maybe they should be a little more concerned about the % that voted against their own parties.

Looks like 96% voted against Elizabeth May, 70% against Jack, 81% against Iggy's old gang, and 93% against the Bloc.

I'm not getting involved in the proportional vs. FPTP debated, but if voters/MPs want to cry about majority governments being earned by parties with less than a majority by % of popular vote, then maybe they should look at the 70-90% of Canadians that don't want them in power.  Or look at the fact that (as has been mentioned before) nobody has had a majority of the popular vote in many, many years.

 

[ModlrMike]

Yet there’s no sign that her parachute ever landed in Berthier-Maskinongé, a Quebec riding near Trois-Rivières that is about a three-hour drive from her home.

Perhaps this is one of the electoral reforms that needs to happen. It should be a requirement that you live in the riding you represent. The exception would be party leaders or winners of by-elections who would then have to conform at the next general election.