Letter to Opposition Leaders on Electoral Reform
Reposted from Fair Vote Canada: Letter to the Opposition Leaders
Michael Ignatieff, Leader, Liberal Party of Canada
Jack Layton, Leader, New Democratic Party of Canada
Gilles Duceppe, Leader, Bloc Quebecois
Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party of Canada
Re: Prorogation - Seize the Moment
Dear Opposition Leaders:
Last Wednesday Prime Minister Harper said he terminated Parliament (without your approval) to give his government an extended opportunity “to re-examine the overall agenda.”
He has granted himself - and you - two clear months to correct course.
There is no sign that elimination of the democratic deficit in the House of Commons is on Stephen Harper’s agenda. It should be on yours.
The Prime Minister’s party represents fewer than 40 per cent of Canadian voters. Nobody can square that minority support and the unilateral shutdown of Parliament with any reasonable concept of legitimate and representative democratic government.
The Prime Minister and his party are deliberately flouting Parliament. We do not accuse him of flouting democracy, however, because the Canadian political system as it now stands is intrinsically undemocratic. If you lead democratic parties, then surely it’s time for you to unite and abolish the shamocracy.
The fix is not difficult. Amend the Canada Elections Act to guarantee every adult Canadian man and woman equal representation of their own choice in Parliament, and establish a swift process to produce the necessary electoral reform. That would make Canada, at last, a democracy.
At present the House of Commons embodies and projects a series of ridiculous untruths. Judging from the current “representation” most Quebecois want to quit the federation; most Canadians are reluctant to elect women; there are no Conservative supporters in Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto; there are no Liberal supporters in Alberta. There are no New Democrat supporters in Saskatchewan and remarkably few elsewhere, and no Green supporters anywhere in Canada.
Democrats, whether in government or opposition, should do everything in their power to bring an end to this gross misrepresentation of the people of Canada.
If the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper uses the prorogation to develop a plan for swift electoral reform, we trust you will cooperate.
In case that is not his intention, your parties, which together represent a substantial majority of Canadian voters, should use the prorogation to re-examine your various agendas and devise a shared action plan for democratic reform.
* Together you should draft legislation to provide Canadians with a democratic voting system and democratic financing of political parties.
* Together you should devise an electoral saw-off sufficient to give Canadians, after the next election, a Parliament with a clear majority committed to implement the democratic reforms.
Each of you should now be asking: does my party really want democratic representation for all Canadians, and what will my party risk or sacrifice, now, to achieve it?
I look forward to your individual written replies – and to your unequivocal commitments to seize the moment and do what is needed to make the House of Commons democratic.
Yours truly,
Bronwen Bruch
President
Fair Vote Canada
- Michael Vaillancourt's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Blogs are personal opinions, and may not reflect the position of the Green Party of Canada. For official party policy please visit the policy and press release sections.
Recent Comments
- Rick Mitchell | 13-May-2012
- Anne Marie Benoit | 12-May-2012
- Frances Thauberger | 11-May-2012
- Paul Maillet | 09-May-2012
- Steve May | 09-May-2012
- 1 of 2222
- ››





Comments
Thanks for sharing
Nice! I suspect that Elizabeth May will be the first through door again with a response. It's easier to reply when you're not worried about how to spin a story-line so that in the future, when you don't take action, you won't be held accountable. May doesn't have to worry about spin, while Layton and Ignatieff might have to more carefully choose their words, given the track records of their parties on this issue.
I hope Elizabeth May posts here response to this website. Or that we read it in the Globe & Mail.
"Sudbury" Steve May
We should get louder on PR
I hope we respond as well Steve. The FPTP is keeping us down, and I don't see how it could hurt us to lead on PR. We ought to get more vocal on it and put some pressure on the other parties. I got into a discussion on the CAPP Facebook group, and people are saying they'll vote for Iggy just to defeat Harper. Here are a few excerpts from others participating in that discussion:
Here's one of my comments for the record:
Agree
I couldn't agree more. The field is wide-open for leading the rejuvenation of democracy in Canada. And the public is on-side.
Canada not yet ready for PR, but will be in time.
The system of FPTP will never change until the status quo becomes untenable. Strategic voting will not cut it, only prolong the agony. What we really need is a realization by Ignatieff that coalition governments are the only viable alternative to elections every two years (which the electorate are fed up with and feeds the apathy idea that all politicians are frauds, montebanks and general scum bags).
Electoral reform will only become meaningful when all the alternatives have been found wanting and coalition govenments (i.e the norm in almost all western democracies) are accepted as a better form of democratic governance.
Sadly, things take time before being accepted and they are fought against until the realization becomes widespread enough to elicit change. Greens should be advocates and add to the numbers of those constantly promoting viable alternatives.
PR
On the same note, many people have large problems with party proposed candidate lists that would in effect for most PR style reform. For some reason we actively support party prioritized lists. By "we", I mean some active GPC supporters and I believe it is also part of our official policy. This is not necessarily a reflection of GPC supporters. I don't claim to know how GPC supporters actually feel.
Regardless, if you look at what happens in Russia, you can buy your way to the top of a list, and basically that means you can buy your way to a seat. Whatever election reform we are proposing, we should be clear not to support any reform that is open to abuse -- especially as it relates to seat buying.
For PR how to get around 'lists'
As always the devil is in the details. How to avoid the dreaded lists?
My first thought is a mixed system of today's FPTP for local reps mixed with a 'party vote'. Namely you vote for the party and the individual at election time, then in the HOC you would have the individuals vote followed by each party leader standing up and stating where their party votes go. Thus the 308 seats right now would also have 308 'party votes' to be split up. The only extra seats would be seats for leaders of parties that received at least 1/308'th of the vote and did not win a seat via other methods (might encourage all parties to get their leaders to be non-riding based thus able to focus on national issues without worrying about local politics). That would've worked out to 0.32% last election or 44,917 votes nationally which seems low but that gives a voice to the Green Party (21 votes) only (outside of the usual suspects). The Christian Heritage party was only 1/2 way there with 26,475 votes while no other party cracked 9k votes overall.
Thus every time a vote comes up you have 616 potential votes available, needing 309 to pass anything. This could lead to more independents winning seats and to more parties getting votes (for example: I'm certain the CHP would crack 50k nationally if the vote didn't seem useless to people).
A side adjustment could also be to remove the 50% party and 60% riding subsidy and shift to a $ per vote for all candidates and parties. So give dollars per vote to individual candidates (have a minimum vote required, say 1%, to avoid people jumping onto the ballot for the cash) and to parties (based on national vote) thus removing some party control over individual candidates. Also remove transfers from party to individual ridings and vice versa to kill off the in-and-out scheme.
Boy would that be a game changer without adding too many jobs for politicians (just one more job which a majority of Canadians wouldn't object to anyways).
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
PR seats from Actual Candidates
Instead of party-proposed lists, couldn’t you add the extra seats (based on overall popular vote) from the candidates who didn’t win in their riding, but got the most votes of the unelected candidates for each party. Then you don’t have any seat-buying or cronyism. Or am I missing something?
Re: PR seats from Actual Candidates
I believe what you suggest is workable, but not all ridings are the same size, and anyway an MP that gets elected despite losing his/her election will come with the taint of failure attached to him/her.
Seat buying can be reduced by localizing the effect of PR with super ridings. Certainly there can be segregation by province, so PR contests wouldn't strattle provincial boundaries.
But maybe super ridings of 10 ridings (take 15 ridings, reduce to 10 ridings and have 5 additional PR candidates) where you get to cast your vote for an individual (other than the regular candidate). The candidates would be selected in priority of how many votes they get (in this case, ties can be broken by a party supplied priority list, because its effect would be minimal.)
I think that's a reasonable rework of what you've proposed.
Can you clarify
Not sure if I understand; could you expand? The extra candidates; would there be some from each party then?
thanks,
Clarify
Well, if there are let's say 5 PR positions in a super-riding, each voter gets one PR vote, but each party can field up to 5 PR candidates. Votes go toward the party, but candidate priority is determined by who receives the most votes.
You could argue that voters should be able to rank 5 candidates with transferable votes, but I think that would be unnecessarily complicated.
I'm neither here nor there on this. But it makes the contests more local and isn't skewed by riding sizes. Any PR solution that avoids seat buying is okay with me.
"couldn’t you add the extra
"couldn’t you add the extra seats (based on overall popular vote) from the candidates who didn’t win in their riding"
This is basicaly in fact how the New Zealand MMP systen works and they are a good example of a recent sucsessful change to the MMP system. After a few initial problems they now have a much more representitive parliment.
See http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/sainte-lague.html for an explanation of the "list seat" alocations and browse the rest of the site for some very good information on this system.
This discussion is needed and the various options must be fully understood but untill we get our MPs to enable the process of change it is just an acdemic exercise!
Democracy requires dialog, please join us at http://democracyunderfire.blogspot.com/
Incremental Steps...
Its no secret that Canadians are not revolutionary-minded, in fact they’re exceptionally risk and change-adverse. Given that we already have unelected, politically appointed ‘hacks’ – called ‘Senators’, we could initiate the thought-process of ‘proportional representation’ using the Senate as the spill-over.
The composition of the Senate would be adjusted after each regular election to reflect the popular vote percentages. Candidates from each party who got the most votes but did not finish first in their riding would be the representatives appointed to the senate to make it proportional to the popular vote. (Like the silver and bronze medal in the Olympics.) The senators with the most seniority who were originally appointed by a party that is now over-represented, would be ‘retired’ to make way.
Its not perfect, but it could pave the way for PR in the House. Oh and by the way, we get rid of political cronyism and dead-beat senators. Small steps are more acceptable and likely more achievable than radical change.
I dont want to be like the
I dont want to be like the states where the prime minister runs on his own ticket like the president.
Fair Vote Canada
Have we responded to this yet?
Voting Reform
Even the United Kingdom, the country on which our parlimentary system is based, will be proposing electoral changes. They will be proposing a referendum on Proportional Representation. It is time for Canada to join the modern democracies of the world.
The Green Party of Canada should use this oportunity to re-engauge the public in the PR debate.
Gary Brown