Reforming the political party nomination process

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 21/09/2024 (387 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

If someone wants to run for elected public office at the national or the provincial level of government, the usual first step is to obtain a nomination from a registered political party. The nomination process has been described positively as “the gateway” to elected political careers and negatively as the hidden, unattractive “underbelly” of electoral politics.

Contrary to popular impressions, there is not always competition within local constituency associations for such nominations. Party nominations can be obtained by acclamation and party leaders can hand-pick candidates to run in particular constituencies.

A 2019 report from Samara Centre for Democracy found that in over five national general elections between 2004 and 2015, only 17 per cent of candidates for the major political parties were chosen through a competitive process, whereas over 40 per cent were appointed. Election laws require the party leader to sign nomination papers, the consequences of which can be positive or negative but must be the subject for another occasion.

Historically, there have been criticisms that the nomination processes resulted in too few women and candidates from diverse backgrounds; a deficiency that has been addressed significantly but not fully in recent years. In 2019, an all-party committee of the House of Commons recommended that the federal government create financial incentives for parties to recruit more women from diverse backgrounds, and that the parties be required to report publicly after each election on their recruitment efforts.

There are also complaints that nomination contests are too short, with snap votes favouring candidates preferred by the party establishment. In “safe” constituencies, winning the nomination amounts to being elected. Highly competitive nomination races can encourage dubious, unethical tactics.

During every election season, there are allegations of candidates being parachuted into constituencies, rigged acclamations, backroom deals and nomination meetings being “stacked” with “instant” party members. Disappointed candidates for nominations are often the source for such allegations, which are not that frequent given the thousands of contests across the country.

Most recently there have been concerns raised about the vulnerability of party nomination contests to outside interference. This is much too large and technically complex a topic to be covered adequately here.

The sources of interference can be international (for example, China or Russia) or domestic, can involve state or private actors and can rely on digital, analog or physical interventions. The aims of interference can include the spread of misinformation, compromising the security of voter data, creating threats to the physical security of both voters and election officials and generally disrupting the democratic process.

Two important points about these threats need to be noted. First, not all types of interference are unlawful under the current legal framework. Second, even if they do not impact the outcomes of nomination contests or general elections, such threats can erode public trust in the integrity of the election process and discourage public participation.

Given the scope and complexity of the interference problems, a whole-of-government approach, along with actions by political parties and civil society, are required to protect all dimensions of electoral democracy.

There has been a multi-pronged approach at the national level. In 2019, the Trudeau government created a task force of security and policing agencies to prevent covert and criminal activities targeted at the electoral process. A major bill passed and proclaimed in June 2024 intended to bolster the capacity of such agencies to detect and counter foreign interference. After some false starts, a commission of inquiry into foreign interference was created and it released a preliminary report last May. A committee of senior public servants was also appointed to track critical incidents, to issue threat alerts and to recommend protective measures.

Elections Canada (EC) is the agency most Canadians think of when it comes to ensuring free and fair elections. It works closely with government agencies, political parties and other stakeholders. In 2018, the Elections Modernization Act granted EC some new legal authority to regulate elections, however the agency still has very limited authority over the nomination process. A recent poll found that 70 per cent of respondents believed it would be a good or very good idea for nominations to be regulated by EC.

Sizable majorities in all the major parties favoured giving EC oversight of the nomination process. However, party leaders and their political advisers have long resisted further scrutiny and regulation by EC, arguing that, as responsible organizations, they are very capable of managing their own internal affairs to uphold transparency and integrity in the nomination process. They have, in fact, strengthened their rules on nominations, a subject for another occasion.

In my view, because parties are instruments of democracy and are recipients of public money, EC should monitor and enforce rules governing nomination processes. Here are some thoughts on possible rules: limit voting to citizens, ban bulk buying of memberships, introduce limits on donations and ceilings on spending, extend existing bans on foreign contributions from campaigns to nomination contests, require all candidates to file financial returns and require parties to file more complete reports on nomination results.

There is low public trust in political parties. Misconduct in the nomination process may not be widespread, but cleaning up the process would be helpful. Regular party members should insist it happens.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba. At the invitation of the CEO of Elections Canada from 2014-2018 he served as a member of the Advisory Board to the agency.