Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 8/1/2012 (3062 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
OTTAWA -- It's hard sometimes to keep one's eyes open while reading about the NDP leadership contest.
With three months left in the campaign, thus far the race has been about as appealing as a cold cup of coffee.
There have been promises of higher taxes for the rich (Brian Topp), a national child-care program (Niki Ashton) and a tax on financial transactions (Peggy Nash). But lots of the promises sound kind of the same, and there aren't many ways yet to distinguish one candidate from the other.
But bubbling beneath the surface of the race and emerging as promises from at least two of the candidates are proposals to reinvent how we elect our governments.
At the same time, the Liberal rank and file want their party to push for electoral-system change. Several resolutions concerning this are expected to come up for debate this weekend at the Liberal convention in Ottawa.
Nathan Cullen, one of the eight candidates in the race to replace the late Jack Layton, is the most forward about his plans for electoral reform. He will be in Winnipeg this week to campaign and he brings with him a promise to hold a referendum to ask Canadians if we want to modernize our voting system.
If Canadians say they do, then he will ask us what kind of system we want. He is open to ideas but prefers a mixed-member proportional representation system. That combines both the current first-past-the-post elections of MPs in every riding with an additional number of seats going to parties based on their share of the popular vote.
Winnipeg NDP MP Pat Martin said he thinks almost all the NDP leadership candidates will end up with some form of proposal to switch to a proportional representation system.
At the Liberal convention this weekend, two of the top five resolutions party members picked as priorities for debate involve a preferential ballot. That is a system in which voters rank the candidates from first to last, and then the bottom candidates are dropped after each count of the ballots until someone reaches 50 per cent plus one.
Most political parties use a preferential ballot to choose their leaders, to ensure the leader of a party doesn't get chosen unless he or she can get support from at least half the party's members.
But we don't seem to care that MPs can be elected with as little as one-third of the vote, and prime ministers get total control of a majority government, usually with little more than 40 per cent of the vote.
Last May, 154 MPs won their seats with less than half the vote in their riding. Nearly 50 won with less than 40 per cent.
The Conservatives won 54 per cent of the seats overall with 40 per cent of the ballots cast.
That is nothing new. In 2000, the Liberals won 57 per cent of the seats with 41 per cent of the vote.
Both parties got all of the power but less than half the electorate wanted them in government.
Once a government wins a majority there are very few, if any, checks on its power.
Few sitting governments or parties with the ability to become a sitting government want to talk about electoral system change because -- obviously -- the current system works for them. The NDP in Manitoba, which has won four consecutive majority governments, doesn't talk about proportional representation with the same gusto as its federal counterparts.
Last October, the provincial NDP won an additional seat in the legislature despite getting fewer votes overall.
If that doesn't say the system is messed up, nothing does.
Canadians are less and less interested in their government and many feel their vote counts less and less for anything. As a result, voter turnout is paltry and governments are becoming accountable only to some of the people -- i.e., the ones who voted for them. Canada is one of the last countries to use a first-past-the-post voting system.
No electoral system is perfect but Canada could really benefit from an intense and substantial debate about what we can do to make our government the best it can be, and make voters as interested and influential as possible.
Your support has enabled us to provide free access to stories about COVID-19 because we believe everyone deserves trusted and critical information during the pandemic.
Our readership has contributed additional funding to give Free Press online subscriptions to those that can’t afford one in these extraordinary times — giving new readers the opportunity to see beyond the headlines and connect with other stories about their community.
To those who have made donations, thank you.
To those able to give and share our journalism with others, please Pay it Forward.
The Free Press has shared COVID-19 stories free of charge because we believe everyone deserves access to trusted and critical information during the pandemic.
While we stand by this decision, it has undoubtedly affected our bottom line.
After nearly 150 years of reporting on our city, we don’t want to stop any time soon. With your support, we’ll be able to forge ahead with our journalistic mission.
If you believe in an independent, transparent, and democratic press, please consider subscribing today.
We understand that some readers cannot afford a subscription during these difficult times and invite them to apply for a free digital subscription through our Pay it Forward program.