Electoral reform: What’s stopping us and what will it take? 

Political scientists, politicians of all stripes and ordinary Canadians are well aware of problems with our voting system in Canada.

These problems are most apparent after elections with severely distorted results like the recent provincial elections in Ontario and Quebec, where the seat shares of different parties were all over the map compared to each party’s vote share.

Distortions like these are just the tip of the iceberg, however. Canadians are increasingly uneasy with the hyperpartisanship of our political leaders and would like to see greater co-operation across party lines. Turnout at the polls is low due to the lack of effective voting power for anyone other than swing voters in swing ridings. Public cynicism, polarization and lack of trust in politicians are at worrisome levels.

We can continue to muddle through under the illusion that Canadian democracy is as good as it gets or seriously explore the options. There is no better place to start than to look at countries with different electoral systems. What one observes is that countries with proportional representation (PR) systematically outperform countries with winner-take-all systems on virtually every indicator.

Start with the workings of the political system itself. PR encourages greater collaboration and a longer-term view. Under PR, parties tend to focus more on their long-term ability to attract voters by working effectively as coalition partners, favouring pragmatism over partisanship and paying attention to the perennial responsibilities of governance instead of divisive fringe issues.

PR leads to better policy when addressing issues such as climate change, the reduction of socio-economic inequalities and good fiscal management that require a long-term perspective. It is in areas such as these that the contrast between PR and winner-take-all countries is most marked.

This brings us to the fundamental question. Canada, both federally and provincially, has been stymied on electoral reform at every turn for over 100 years. If PR is fairer and yields better policies, why has progress been so elusive? The answer is obvious. Politicians elected under one system have no incentive to change that system once in power.

What we have is a “Promise and Betray” model of electoral reform, best illustrated by the experience in Quebec, which has gone through failed attempts by three different parties that promised PR while in the opposition but lost support for reform in caucus after forming government. Federally, Justin Trudeau’s broken promise to make 2015 the last first-past-the-post election continues to haunt his government to this day. If it's not Promise and Betray, it's the “Sweep It Under the Rug” model, which is widely used as well.

Fortunately, Canada has a tradition of reaching out to independent bodies for advice when partisan self-interest gets in the way of policymaking. On matters of electoral reform, considerable use has been made of independent commissions or citizens’ assemblies. Citizens’ assemblies are the gold standard as a mechanism that is at once representative and capable of in-depth analysis. We have had two on electoral reform in Canada: one in B.C. (2004), the other in Ontario (2007). Analysts have praised these processes for their non-partisanship and ability to reach a broad consensus.

Interest in citizens’ assemblies is making a comeback, federally and elsewhere. Federally, the idea has been discussed in the parliamentary Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and will be the object of a resolution calling for a citizens’ assembly on electoral reform at the upcoming Liberal national convention running May 4 to 6 in Ottawa.

There remain some legitimate concerns. One is that we would still be dependent on politicians to deliver the goods. What is to prevent them from ignoring the results, delaying reforms or subjecting them to an unwinnable referendum, as they have done in the past?

Another concern is how best to ensure the legitimacy of the assembly’s recommendations even without a validating referendum. Referendums are known to be divisive and easy to manipulate. More fundamentally, they are an inappropriate instrument on matters of civil rights, where the rights of the minority need to be respected. A properly designed and implemented citizens’ assembly should be seen as a superior way of consulting citizens, compared to referendums.

For a citizens’ assembly to yield practical results will require attention to detail. Features requiring attention include the need for a multi-party approach from the start; explicit acknowledgment by politicians that they are part of the problem; and a process that is robust and consultative enough to stand on its own.

With an eye to ensuring the successful adoption of its recommendations, those responsible for establishing the assembly’s mandate might also include considerations of political feasibility. For example, the assembly might be asked to explore the feasibility of taking an incremental approach combined with an ongoing review process to ensure further progress down the line.

Done right, citizens’ assemblies could be the way forward on electoral reform at all levels — federally, provincially and municipally.

Réal Lavergne has been engaged in the election reform movement since his retirement as a civil servant in 2013. A former academic and civil servant, Lavergne spent most of his career working in the area of international development as a researcher, academic and senior policy analyst. He holds a PhD in political economy from the University of Toronto.

Joyce Hall is a retired academic at Seneca College and has been a Fair Vote Canada activist for many years.