Letters: Electoral reform

Under a system of proportional representation (PR) every vote counts

Letter to the Orillia Packet & Times from Alec Adams, CEO, Simcoe North Federal Green Party Association

Last week’s letter from Bill Soles takes shots at the Preferential Ballot (AKA Alternative Vote) voting system, a system that is used only in the Australian lower house and is not a serious contender to replace our First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system.

Mr. Soles asks the question: “What is wrong with having our government determined by those who care enough to get out and vote?”

I have no problem with governments being determined by those who get out and vote. The problem is that half of those who do get out and vote don’t actually elect anyone and are thereby unrepresented in parliament.

FPTP regularly awards 100% power to parties that receive less than a majority of votes. The current Liberal government, and the preceding Harper government, both gained 100% power when the FPTP system awarded them 54% of seats with only 39% of the votes.

Canadian political parties exercise strict discipline over their MPs, with the result that, if they want to keep their jobs, MPs usually vote the way their parties dictate. Consequently the only way a voter can be effectively represented is if their MP represents a party that they support – so voters are out of luck if the person they voted for was not elected.

Sadly, that is regularly the case for 50% of all voters and in 2015, nine million votes did not serve to elect anyone. In contrast, under a system of proportional representation (PR) every vote counts, and the proportion of seats won by each party corresponds to the proportion of votes cast for each party. Of necessity, parties learn to co-operate and, generally speaking, countries with PR voting systems (there are 94) do better, economically and socially, than FPTP countries. They have more women and minorities in parliament, less poverty, better social services, and more equal distribution of wealth. More people choose to vote and the public tends to be happier with their governments.

It is true that under PR a single party is less likely to achieve 100% power, so those who want absolute power will oppose a change from FPTP.

Those of us who favour PR don’t think it is smart, fair or efficient to allow a party with 39% of the vote to rule unconstrained for four years and then find that our only option is to toss them out and replace them with another party with less than 40% support. It is interesting to note that in 1997, before he entered parliament, Stephen Harper co-wrote the following with Tom Flanagan, opposing FPTP and supporting proportional representation: “Many of Canada’s problems stem from a winner-take-all style of politics that allows governments in Ottawa to impose measures abhorred by large areas of the country. Only in politics do we still entrust power to a single faction expected to prevail every time over the opposition by sheer force of numbers. Even more anachronistically we persist in structuring the government team like a military regiment under a single commander with almost total power to appoint, discipline and expel subordinates.”

If Justin Trudeau and the Liberals bring the current electoral reform process to a successful conclusion, so that Canada has a fairer and more democratic voting system, it will be a unique and enlightened achievement.

Don’t change system to benefit runners-up

Letter to the Orillia Packet & Times from Bill Soles, Oro-Medonte Township August 25 2016

There are those who would wish to make our precious right to vote obligatory. There are those who wish to see a winner declared only when he/she receives over 50% of the vote. Count me as one who believes that the present system is just fine.

I have never passed up my privilege, and responsibility, to vote since I became eligible to vote at age 21. I have voted in municipal, provincial and federal elections. I have voted for school board representatives, club and association officials, and my local homeowners’ association representatives.

It was never easier to vote than it is today, with the implementation of advance polls.

Please think about this question: What is wrong with having our government determined by those who care enough to get out and vote?

There are those who would wish to introduce legislation to abolish first-past-the-post elections. They don’t just want the candidate with the most votes to be declared the winner; they want the winner to have an absolute majority of the votes.

To accomplish this, they want the voters to indicate first, second, third, etc., choices. If the candidate with the most first-place votes doesn’t have an absolute majority, they wish to see second, third, etc., votes counted until there is a majority. This is patently unfair to the person receiving the highest number of votes on the first round. For example, if the leading candidate receives 45% of the vote, and the second candidate receives 30% of the vote, the second candidate is then eligible to receive 70% of the second-round votes, while the leader is limited to 55% of those votes.

Again, I would prefer to stick with the status quo. In fact, if preferential voting becomes the law, I will give my second vote to the candidate I least want to see representing me. I won’t help the candidate that I believe presents the strongest opposition to my candidate, by giving a second-place vote to the nearest competitor.

Let’s face it; there is no “perfect” system of choosing among those who have offered to serve. But, changing the present system to accommodate those whose candidates are perennial runners-up is not the answer.