Reinventing Parliament Why we need a new voting system Prepared by Wendy Bergerud, May 2015 (with some material from Tony Hodgson, FVBC and Anita Nickerson, FVC)

How did I get into this? Like most people I have been unhappy with the way our political system seems to work. For instance: –How can 40% of the popular vote give a party a majority of seats and hence a majority government? –Why does the power seem to be getting more and more centralized in the PM or premiers’ offices? 2

3

Alberta votes that didn’t help elect someone Votes Not ElectingVotes ReceivedPercent PC340,154412,955 82% WRP215,013360,201 60% NDP148,104603,461 25% LIB54,99462,171 88% AP25,15833,867 74% Other14, % Total797,5641,486,796 54% 4

5

2008 Federal Election 1.3 Million votes = 49 Seats Greens 940,000 votes = 0 Seats

Fair Vote Canada National Organization Multi-partisan Changing our voting system would be a foundational improvement to our democracy. It could give us: –A Parliament that we voted for –A government more responsive to voters. 8

To determine the best model of Proportional Representation for Canada, we call on federal parties and candidates to commit to: 1.Conducting a citizen-led consultation process immediately following the next federal election. 2.Implementing the model in time for the following election.

Voting Reform needs to become an “obvious” change. Some of the groups working on this: –Fair Vote Canada Local action team has a facebook site. –Fair Voting BC –LeadNow –Dogwood Initiative –And many others. 11

Proportional Representation? Most European and OECD countries actually use some form of proportional voting system This frequently leads to coalition governments who have actually received support from more than half the voters. There are three main families of PR –FVC doesn’t promote one specific model. 12

13 What is a voting system? And who can change it? This is the system of rules and methods by which citizens’ votes are translated into seats in our legislature or parliament. The Voting System can be changed directly by parliament. The constitution does NOT need to be changed. There is NO legal requirement for a citizens’ assembly or a referendum.

14 Our current SMP (FPTP) system Our current system divides the country into 338 ridings/constituencies/electoral districts (ED’s) with approximately equal numbers of people in each. Boundary commissions try to maintain whole communities within each ED Our association and interest in parliament is defined by where we live.

15 Our current SMP (FPTP) system Currently, one MP is elected from each single member riding or district. Candidates for MP are listed on a ballot and voters choose just one name. The candidate with the “most” votes “wins”. Instead of one election, we actually have 338 individual elections, one for each riding. We don’t actually vote for a government.

Two Main Parties False Majorities Strategic Voting Neglected Minorities FPTP (First Past the Post) BC and Canada’s Current Voting System Elected Candidates Voters are divided into small ridings based on where they live. Colours indicate party or group preference.

17 Local Representation This system fundamentally “defines” our interests by where we live; it is assumed that we share our values and interests with our physical neighbours. This may have worked back in the 1800’s when a small group of landowners within “riding distance” would get together and decide who to send off to the far away legislature to represent their (similar) interests.

18 Local Representation But it doesn’t work anymore: –System hasn’t adapted as more groups were enfranchised (e.g. Women, Asians, Aboriginal, Indo-Canadians, etc.) –Many “communities of interest” are now spatially diffuse and unable to get reasonable representation – they must be spatially congregated enough within a riding to get representation.

19 Local Representation

20 Local Representation /WhitePaper.pdf

21 Local Representation This ombudsperson role is really about providing“constituency service”. Is it really “representation”?

22 But isn’t our current voting system simple? Our current voting systems seems simple: – The ballot is easy to use – Counting the votes is relatively easy: just figure out who got the most votes BUT – The outcomes are anything but simple to explain!

23 Using our voting system to reflect the will of the electorate is like using a funhouse mirror to reflect your image. Outcomes are erratic

24 Outcomes are erratic Let’s look at the results of three provincial elections: –In 2005, the Liberals got a majority government with just 45% of the vote. –In 2001, the Liberals got 97% of the seats with only 58% of the popular vote. The Green Party got no seats with 12%. –In 1996, the NDP formed gov’t even though they got less of the popular vote than the Liberals.

BC NDP Support Almost Constant yet outcome unrelated YearLiberalsNDPGreen 19867%43% 0.2% %41%1% %39%2% %22%12% %42%9% %42%8% %40%8% 25

26 Ineffective Votes (wasted votes) Many of our votes don’t help elect an MLA (about half of us!) This results in distorted party results Discourages voters Far more votes will help elect an MLA with a proportional voting system.

Wasted votes 2011 = 7,280,599 Approx 50% each election Liberal 2,211,697 NDP 2,117,112 Green 540,205 Conservative 1,455,077 Bloc 826,805 Other: 129,703

30 Are Regions different? Differences between regions exaggerated: Provincially Vancouver Island looks NDP while Okanagan looks Liberal (only 50% vote Liberal!) Parties emphasize “swing” ridings during elections - their “safe” seats tend to be neglected during the campaign. Areas of support often “rewarded” during party’s term of office.

31 North of the Malahat (2005)

32 Okanagan (2005)

Local Distortions BC 2005 Election Fairly similar popular vote, but radically different outcomes.

34 Majority Governments? A “majority” government should represent a majority of its citizens. We commonly get one-party majority governments with less than 50% support While “stable” during their term, long-term stability is missing as we lurch from one ruling party to another. In the last 16 BC elections we’ve had only one “true” majority government (2001).

35 Minority/Coalition Gov’ts Minority or coalition governments are more likely with a proportional voting system. Parties are more likely to form coalitions that represent a majority of the voters. Small changes in voting patterns won’t change results much so parties will have to work together ==> Policy changes will be more stable over the long-term.

New Zealand after changing to a PR model (MMP) The end of single-party majority governments has revitalized their House of Representatives: Its committees are stronger than they once were, no longer dominated by a government party majority that functions on the command of the Prime Minister. The Cabinet has also been strengthened vis-á-vis the PM because almost all Cabinets since 1996 have been composed of members from two or more parties, eliminating the ability of the PM to simply demand greater party discipline. Paraphrased from Democratizing the Constitution, pg

If you and your neighbour don’t agree politically, the only way that each of you can be properly represented in the legislature is if each of you helped elect a different MP. With our current system, we only let one person speak for each geographic district (or riding). 37 Half of the voters are denied the MP they voted for

In a modern democracy, each region needs different MLAs to represent the diverse groups and points of view within it. That is, we need multimember districts. This is one essential component of any proportional voting system. 38 Every vote should affect the outcome

What are the alternatives? PR voting systems provide a better match between how people vote and the final outcome. Three main families: 1.PR-List – vote for parties (candidate lists) 2.MMP – a mixture of PR-list with SMP (or AV – ranked ballots in single member ridings) 3.STV – a variety of PR-list where voters rank the candidates on the party lists and can cross party lines when doing so.

Main Features of a PR system MUST have multi-member districts! STV uses ranked ballots in multi-member districts. The “candidate list” in MMP actually represents a multi-member riding. Each list belongs to a multi-member riding. MMP also uses single member ridings. PR-list only uses multi-member ridings.

Main Features of a PR system PR systems can be designed with “tiers”. STV and FPTP are one tier systems. MMP is a two tier system: one tier of single member ridings and at least one tier that combines some or all of the single member ridings for the list(s). PR-list is often designed with tiers so that the lower tier ridings can be smaller, while the upper tier ridings help smooth out the overall proportionality of the results.

10 Member Region 42 Results of the popular vote

FPTP results 43 Single Member Plurality (SMP) Disproportionate Results

Small Regions (e.g. STV) 44 Teams of MLAs in each region provides proportionality, both locally and overall Proportional Results

Two Tier Systems (e.g. MMP) 45 Disproportional results in the first tier are compensated by results in the second First Tier (like FPTP) Second Tier Regional List

To determine the best model of Proportional Representation for Canada, we call on federal parties and candidates to commit to: 1.Conducting a citizen-led consultation process immediately following the next federal election. 2.Implementing the model in time for the following election.

Websites Fair Vote Canada: Resources at: Fair Voting BC: fairvotingbc.com Elections BC: Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada: content/uploads/2013/06/Law-Commission-of- Canada-Report.pdf