Categories: Potter Gold

Electoral Reform linkage

Here’s the IRPP study
Here’s the Canada West survey
Here’s me, drawing what I…

by Andrew Potter on Monday, September 28, 2009 8:24am - 33 Comments

Here’s the IRPP study

Here’s the Canada West survey

Here’s me, drawing what I think is the main, somewhat disheartening, message from the IRPP study.

Here’s Robert Roach of the Canada West Foundation, writing in The Mark. I think this gets it almost right:

It is too bad that the provincial reform efforts failed as one or all of them would have provided a live Canadian experiment with an alternative system that we could learn from and a spur to change at the national level.

The only quibble I have is that it’s not clear to me what conclusions we can draw about national politics from provincial experiments in reform, given that the main problem federal PR is supposed to solve — regional fracturing — is not much of a problem in any of the provinces. That’s not to say we shouldn’t experiment, and it is possible that if a province were to give MMP a shot that voters would just get comfortable with it and it might tip more provinces to give it (another) shot. At which point it might become normalised, and it wouldn’t seem so exotic at the federal level.

For what it’s worth, I’ve started to come around on some proportional element for the House, largely for the reasons Coyne’s been hammering at for ages. Wouldn’t be the first time he’s persuaded me of something.

***

One thing that does have me wondering, and about which I have no good thoughts, is the relationship between the reform process and the ongoing reluctance of voters to endorse the proposed changes. The main conclusion of the Canada West paper is that the citizens’ assembly process is now entrenched as a required element of any reform. Yet the main conclusion of the IRPP study is that citizens continue to see electoral reform as “elite driven”, even when it is given the stamp of popular input and civic engagement. The only parallel I can think of is that it is like if the public had a veto over the jury system. The jury sits for weeks or months, considers the evidence, deliberates, and returns a verdict. And then the public then votes on that verdict and reject on the grounds that it is “elite driven”.

I’m not sure what to make of this.

More by Andrew Potter

http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

One thing that does have me wondering, and about which I have no good thoughts, is the relationship between the reform process and the ongoing reluctance of voters to endorse the proposed changes.

Most of the corporate media is against the idea of electoral reform and this opposition has been reflected in the coverage of the issue. Since the corporate media is still the main driver of public opinion it's only natural that public opinion would continue to reflect what the corporate media is saying.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

I think Potter has touched upon an intriguing dilemma in Canada, that any proposal to change the structure of our government quickly gets labelled 'elite driven' – Hello Charlottetown – yet the public is completely unwilling to engage in the discussion. I blame the media as much as the politicians. They have unevenly trumpeted the cause of the naysayers, e.g. Wells and Filmon being treated as brave populist mavericks rather than the political opportunists they were. Any real change in structure requires a level of trust between all the parties and the media, so thoughts of any successful reform at this stage is merely a pipe dream, the environment is too poisoned. Again, this is as much the media's fault as it is the politicians. They consistently prefer to highlight the juicy personal battles, rather than break down complex issues. Kudos to Coyne, Potter and Wells for at least trying.

Regarding the PR question, even though I have voted for PR in the past two BC referendums, I think the public recognizes some merits in FPP that proponents dismiss, and recognize problems with PR that proponents take too lightly. Voters can take a nuanced position with FPP. A person may vote Green with the comfortable knowledge the candidate will never win the seat. I think a lot of votes are strictly signalling a message, if the voter did not understand the system and felt they had to vote for who they thought should govern, their choices could be very different.

The biggest problem with PR, and one the public probably recognizes well enough, is that it will only increase two of the biggest problems with the current structure: partisan influence and a contemporary environment that produces minority governments.
Colin

Well I can't speak for other provinces, but the election results that justified reform in BC were 1996 and 2001. First the Liberals won a slim plurality of votes (~41 to 39), but the NDP, with their vote more efficiently distributed for FPTP, won a majority of seats – to the outrage of many voters at the time. Then, in 2001, the Liberals won with about 57% of the votes, a total which gave them 97% (77/79) of the seats – this time many other voters were outraged. Gordon Campbell, who had promised to move on electoral reform in his campaign, then initiated the citizens assembly, but failed to budget any money for YES/NO sides to create a public debate. So, especially since the referendum coincided with an election campaign, no one really knew what was happening or what STV was. Then, this May, the re-run happened, this time with public funding though still help during en election, but now all of the outrage had magically washed away and nobody seemed to even remember what had happened in those elections to so frustrate them, but what they did know all about was the scary labyrinthine STV system, that the media repeatedly claimed was "too difficult to even bother trying to explain – you would never understand anyways, but try to make an informed decision please" – note that I may be paraphrasing slightly.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

I think your paraphrasing is pretty much right on the money, concerning the media message. The latest result has given me pause, every time I think of it.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

And then the public then votes on that verdict and reject on the grounds that it is “elite driven”.

To be excessively glib, why not? The public can quite easily interpret the citizens' assembly as having been dazzled and brainwashed by the heavily theory-driven wonks "advising" them. The actual members also aren't visibly the public proponents of specific reforms; it becomes much easier to associate radical change with the slightly unhinged FPP-is-unfair-to-Greens type of loon who's actually all over the media, than the theoretically average citizens who signed off on the reform package.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Does one really have to be a "loon" to think that a system that gives the Bloc 35 seats in Parliament for every million votes they get, and gives the Greens 0 seats in Parliament for every million votes they get maybe isn't the bestest system ever for Canada?

FPTP can't even consistently give power to the party that won the most votes for Pete's sake! How is that not broken?

As for reforms being elite driven, I don't really buy it given the citizens' assemblies, but even if it was, so what? Our current electoral system was elite driven, only with FPTP it was put in place by an all-male, all white, nineteenth century elite. Elite-driven reforms may not be ideal, but how much worse can they be than the current elite-driven system we've been using since before women were allowed to vote?

As for "the actual members also aren't visibly the public proponents of specific reforms", really? 'Cause during the campaign in Ontario I couldn't turn around without (metaphorically) bumping in to one of those citizens. Those videos of their's were everywhere.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I'm being something of a devil's advocate here, but could we not blame the situation of the Green party (lots of votes, no seats) on the Green party? If they were to focus their resources on select ridings to start (and heck, run their leader in a riding not held by a cabinet minister), they might realize a few seats.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"Does one really have to be a "loon" to think that a system that gives the Bloc 35 seats in Parliament for every million votes they get, and gives the Greens 0 seats in Parliament for every million votes they get maybe isn't the bestest system ever for Canada?"

The Greens did not have even a single candidate that people thought worthy of voting en masse for. Why should they get a bunch of seats for losers few in their ridings voted for?

I think people think of electoral reform as elite driven because it is. Many Canadians are happy with our electoral system as is, and if they aren't happy with it they don't trust pols to fix it, and it is a small sliver of elite who are driving these electoral reforms measures. The citizens’ assembly process is just a fig leaf to try and make the process more legitimate than if a few people met behind closed doors to redesign our democracy.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Fair enough on the Greens, I suppose (though I kinda doubt the Liberals, Tories or Dippers really had many candidates "that people thought worthy of voting en masse for", it's just that for the more established parties that doesn't hurt them!) but as for this whole elite driven meme, while I get it, I just always return to the point that our current system was designed by a bunch of elites. It's not like it's some natural system of uncompromising goodness.

Would it automatically be a step in the wrong direction to enact a system designed by a 21st Century elite (that presumably would include some visible minorities and women) to replace our current all-white, all-male, nineteenth-century elite created system?

I just smile every time I hear the criticism that it's only the "elite" that wants to redesign our system, created by well-off, white, male land owners from the 1800s. The horror! (LOL)

My main issue is with the notion that FPTP is some obvious good. As though it could not be improved. It's just silly.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

To me, when I hear 'elite-driven' it means elites going against the wishes of electorate. Yes, our system was put in place by elites over a hundred years ago but there was considerable desire for the changes that took place.
Today, how many people are really vexed by our political system. Where does it rank in list of things that Canadians are concerned about?
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

To me, when I hear 'elite-driven' it means elites going against the wishes of electorate. Yes, our system was put in place by elites over a hundred years ago but there was considerable desire for the changes that took place. Today, how many people are really vexed by our political system. Where does it rank in list of things that Canadians are concerned about?
scf

I agree. I think that the average person does not see a problem at all. It's obvious why the BQ has lots of sets and the Greens have none – the Bloq is strongly supported in the places where they run, by a large contingent of the community, the greens are nothing more than a small minority anywhere in Canada. If a region of Canada wants to send an independent or a BQ MP or any other candidate, that is their right. That is a big difference from a party with a small number of supporters in each riding across Canada.

The system is based on region, that is how ridings are divided. I see no problem with that. PR proponents want to drop a region-based system for something else.
http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

My main issue is with the notion that FPTP is some obvious good. As though it could not be improved. It's just silly.

You're right, and if designing an electoral system for a new nation with a new constitution, it's certainly worthwhile to look at alternatives.

When a long-established system has a popular reputation as good enough (sort of, kind of, more or less, fill in your qualifying colloquialism here), however, why wouldn't proposals to tinker with the mechanisms as a form of affirmative action for relatively unpopular small parties be taken badly?
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

My main issue is with the notion that FPTP is some obvious good. As though it could not be improved. It's just silly.

You're right, and if designing an electoral system for a new nation with a new constitution, it's certainly worthwhile to look at alternatives.

When a long-established system presently has a popular reputation as good enough (sort of, kind of, more or less, subject to events, fill in your qualifying colloquialism here), however, why wouldn't proposals to tinker with the mechanisms be taken badly?
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

Would it automatically be a step in the wrong direction to enact a system designed by a 21st Century elite (that presumably would include some visible minorities and women) to replace our current all-white, all-male, nineteenth-century elite created system?

No, but at the same time – and this is quite possibly something that the electorates that have rejected reform may have considered, if only unconsciously – the fact that rich white male anglo landowners designed the structure of the current system isn't an automatic knock against it, either. They may – surprise! – have hit on something that turned out to work fairly well, after adjusting for more egalitarian interpretations of citizenship and personhood. While it may have been elitist at the outset, there's been natural evolution and acceptance amongst the majority of the expanded electorate, to the extent that most current voters probably feel they have an ownership stake in it. The Bad Old Conservative Elites vs. Good New Diverse Elites thing is a red herring, I think; any scheme seen as being sold by a small group and not widely demanded en masse by the electorate would get a similar reception, in the here and now.

My main issue is with the notion that FPTP is some obvious good. As though it could not be improved. It's just silly.

You're right, and if designing an electoral system for a new nation with a new constitution, etc., it'd certainly be worthwhile to look at alternatives.

When a long-established system presently has a popular reputation as good enough (sort of, kind of, more or less, subject to events, fill in your qualifying colloquialism here), however, why wouldn't proposals to tinker with the basic mechanisms of representation be taken badly? Until the point that it seems impossible to elect any kind of plurality-supported government at all, I have to suspect the public demand for massive electoral reform will remain lukewarm.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Until the point that it seems impossible to elect any kind of plurality-supported government at all, I have to suspect the public demand for massive electoral reform will remain lukewarm.

You're probably right, but I really wish that all that was needed to spur reform was for it to be possible to elect a government which is NOT supported by a plurality (which it is, and which has happened on occasion). In other words, that the bar isn't set as "as long as it's possible for FPTP to elect a government that has the support of a plurality of voters we should leave it alone" but as, "as long as it's possible for FPTP to elect a government that does not have the support of a plurality of voters we should try to improve it".

We may get to a point where reform becomes more popular though in the not TOO distant future. I really don't see the Tories getting their majority any time soon, personally, nor do I see the Liberals getting one, so a few more years of bouncing around minorities may just start people re-thinking (or, we'll change our voting patterns and finally elect someone to a majority, but I just don't see that on the horizon at the moment).

Meanwhile, the struggle for unassailable majority power through 40% popular support continues.

touquer

You are, I believe, bang on. It has little to do with the actuality of pro-rep, and everything to do with the manner in which it is presented, and the perception of eggheadedness/radicalism which adheres to it (note I say 'perception': this has little to do with the actuality of the thing…). Combined with the aggressive campaigns against pro-rep waged by the 'no' side, muddy waters become muck, and sufficient numbers of people, already wary of radical change, wish to stay clear. Certainly, the enthusiastic support of left of centre parties such as the NDP and the Greens also has an effect, as you mention: to your average centre or centre-right citizen (of which, apparently, there is a majority), it all seems like a thinly veiled attempt by fringe parties to seize power. A misperception, perhaps, but a powerful one.

And lest we be elitist ourselves, its' worth considering that perhaps your average citizen is in fact informed, and simply rejected electoral reform on the basis of (not ungrounded) fears of constant shaky Italian style coalitions at the provincial and federal level, and/or any number of other reasonable objections that have been levied against reform.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I suspect people are naturally suspicious of endorsing big changes to the status quo that take more than two sentences to explain.

That's partly a knock against the citizenry, to be sure.

But it can also reflect a healthy skepticism on the part of voters. They might not love the system they have, but they're not about enact big changes on the promise of hypothetical outcomes.

Also. most of the proposed reforms seek to expand the size of representative bodies, which I'm betting is a non-starter in many cases.

Finally, most of the proposals would partly shift the focus of our democracy a bit further away from direct regional representation (i.e. ridings) and a bit more toward the parties. Something tells me most Canadians aren't inspired by the influence of parties on our democracy in recent years. And that there's something to be said for a direct relationship between 'communities' and their representatives.

kcm

I'm still in flux with the idea of reform – i like some aspects of PR but like many others i'm wary of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. One thing i've come to believe firmly is that if we are to have reform it must take into account the Canadian context ; we aren't europe and lord knows we aren't Americans. The link between riding reps and their constituents should not be on the table as a precondition. Unfortunately PR systems can't seem to pull this off in any convincing manner.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Small thing to note, but worth remembering: MPs represent all the citizens of a riding, not just the ones that vote for them.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Oh, for sure (though a snarky person might add: in theory, lol).

However, I do think there's two senses of "represent" that are at issue, one "represent" as in "make representations on behalf of" the opinions of the citizenry; and two "represent" as in "embody, or be somehow the personification of" the opinions of the citizenry. Your point represents the first, but less so the later. Particularly for those who are "represented" by a politician diametrically opposed to their own political philosophy, the fact that said MP still technically "represents" them is often cold comfort.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

True enough. I guess I tend to believe in the indirect pressure of 'losing' votes. MPs, and governments for that matter, who are elected by a whisker cannot proceed as though they've been handed an iron-clad mandate. They *can*, of course, but generally it's at their peril to do so.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Also true, but of course the Tory MP doesn't have to give a wit about "losing" NDP voters, as they never voted for the MP anyway, and never intend to (the reverse also being true of course).

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

A highly polarized electorate will inevitably leave some completely outside the realm of influence. I don't see where doinking the system could change that. Perhaps some of my unease with charges of broken democracy, or proposals for new systems, is that there seems to be an underlying assumption that we either can, or need to, all join hands and sing from the same songbook (not you in particular, LKO).

Lord Kitchener's Own

Allow me to throw this out there just to stir the pot and get some feedback.

Is it possible that sometimes "the elites" know more about a certain subject than the masses generally, and therefore are in a better position to make an informed decision on said subject.

Second, while some sort of "citizen's assembly" has been used recently in the attempts to enact some form of electoral reform, are we convinced that no government will ever decide to just enact electoral reform on their own (which would be their prerogative) because they think it's the right thing to do? (I realize this is highly unlikely given the fact that parties in power are generally the parties that benefit from the inequities inherent in FPTP, and so they would be loathe to change it, but do we mostly agree that the reason they won't is for that reason, and not some high minded sense of democratic participation?).

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

The 'elites' never speak with one voice, for every seemingly intelligent idea, there is an equally seemingly intelligent refute. Its up to the public – thankfully – to cut the wheat from the chaff. And typically, when the intelligentsia gain power, they are a disaster due to their own arrogance. The real world rarely operates the way they imagined it. Democracy works.

As for any government making what amounts to constitutional change, they would be pilloried, and rightfully so, if they tried to unilaterally make such a change.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

The 'elites' never speak with one voice; for every seemingly intelligent idea, there is an equally seemingly intelligent refute. Its up to the public – thankfully – to cut the wheat from the chaff. And typically, when the intelligentsia gain power, they are a disaster due to their own arrogance. The real world rarely operates the way they imagined it. Democracy works.

As for any government making what amounts to constitutional change, they would be pilloried, and rightfully so, if they tried to unilaterally make such a change.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I don't entirely disagree with your second point, but what if the government in question had broad support from the opposition parties (which they likely would, as they (the government) would likely be operating counter to their own partisan interests, what with being the party who actually won using the current system and all). Certainly a government enacting electoral reform against the wishes of the opposition would be pilloried, but in my imaginary fantasy land in which political parties work together and compromise to come up with laws and policies that are best for the people they represent, do you suppose the public at large would be up in arms about a change supported across partisan lines? Given that roughly 40% of the eligible voting public find marking an X with a pencil entirely too onerous a task to be justifiable in a democracy (and some are virtually apoplectic that we might be asked to mark an X on a piece of paper less than a year after the last time we had to mark an X on a piece of paper) I confess that I'm not sure I have a very good idea of what the public wants (except not to be asked to make the sacrifice of marking X's on pieces of paper!).

Also, democracy does, most certainly, work. I think there's definitely an argument to be made though that we could get much closer to the ideal of democracy with a system other than fptp!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

I am uneasy with fptp as well, but taking the BC example, as I mentioned earlier, the people have been very clear that whatever transgressions upon democracy that we opponents see in that electoral system, the public are increasingly against changing it. This, despite both of the significant political parties giving the broad utopian support you seek, for the past five plus years.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Well, truly it's gotten worse in B.C. since the first attempt, but keep in mind, the first vote on electoral reform in B.C. won the support of 57.7% of citizens, and I believe that's more popular support than any "majority" government has EVER received in B.C. (the very same election, Campbell won 58.2% of the seats in B.C. with 45.8% of the vote).

So, electoral reform may be becoming less popular in B.C. but, in 2005 anyway, it was more popular than any government they've ever elected.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I don't know if you can compare referendum and party percentages, given that the former provide two choices only.

scf

given that the main problem federal PR is supposed to solve — regional fracturing — is not much of a problem in any of the provinces

I disagree. Quebec has a huge divide between Montreal and the rest of Quebec, which is very similar to the regional divide of Quebec in Canada, except that the federalist/separatist anglo+allophone/francophone roles are reversed as far as the majority goes.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I suspect people are naturally suspcious of endorsing big changes to the status quo that take more than two sentences to explain.

That's partly a knock against the citizenry, to be sure.

But it can also reflect a healthy skepticism on the part of voters. They might not love the system they have, but they're not about enact big changes on the promise of hypothetical outcomes.

Also. most of the proposed reforms seek to expand the size of represenative bodies, which I'm betting is a non-starter in many cases.

Finally, most of the proposals would partly shift the focus of our democracy a bit further away from direct regional representation (i.e. ridings) and a bit more toward the parties. Something tells me most Canandians aren't inspired by the influence of parties on our democracy in recent years. And that there's something to be said for a direct relationship between 'communities' and their representatives.