1. PR Primer: Why we need a new voting system Prepared by Wendy Bergerud, May 2015 (with much borrowed material)

2. 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. 3 Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform Learning Phase: Jan to Mar 2004 Public Hearings: Apr to Jun 2004 –50 held throughout the province –Summary meeting June 2004 in Prince George. Submissions: until mid August 2004 –Received 1603! Deliberation Phase: Sept to Dec 2004

4. Photo by Kent Kallberg

5. The Assembly’s Three Key Values Fairness – parties’ share of seats in the Legislature mirrors their share of votes Local representation – communities and regions are represented in the house Voter choice – voters have more choice not only between candidates but also between parties

6. 6 Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform Recommended a voting system by 146 to 7 First Referendum in May 2005 –Passed in 77 of 79 ridings –“Only” 57.8% overall support Electoral Boundaries Commission drew both sets of boundaries for 2009 election. Second Referendum in May 2009 with differently worded question. –Passed in 8 of 85 ridings with 39% overall support.

7. 7

8. Supplemental Material Three handouts that provide supplemental material: 1) FVC: Frequently Asked Questions 2) FVC: Why Proportional Representation? 3) FVC: Statement of Purpose Changing our voting system would be a foundational improvement to our democracy. 8

9. What is Fair Vote Canada? National, multi-partisan citizens’ campaign for voting system reform. FVC promotes changing our voting system to one that better meets the 5 goals in the FVC: Statement of Purpose. Over 55,000 supporters, 34 chapters and teams across the country. Advisory Board of prominent Canadians. 9 FVC: FAQ

10. 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.

11. FVC Member? Consider signing the Declaration of Voter’s Rights ( link on main page: www.fairvote.ca) Consider joining Fair Vote Canada Just $10 the first year. ( click on the DONATE button on the main page ) Consider donating to FVC. 11

12. 12 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. There is NO legal requirement for a citizens’ assembly or a referendum.

13. 13 The constitution does NOT need to be changed BUT the number of members elected from each province is restricted by the constitution. So whatever voting system we change to must have the same number of MPs within each province as we now have. The country-wide proportionality must be obtained by proportional results within each province == > no country-wide list.

14. What is Proportional Representation (PR)? It is any voting system that produces a Parliament (or other representative body such as a legislature or council) where the voters are represented in that body in proportion to how they voted. OR “where the number of seats obtained is proportional to the share of votes obtained by each representative or party”. 14 FVC: FAQ

15. Does FVC advocate for any particular PR system? We do NOT advocate for any particular PR voting system. Nevertheless we need a “made in Canada” solution to take into account our large and diversified country. While some form of PR-list is used in most countries using a PR voting system, no one is recommending it for Canada. 15 FVC: FAQ

16. 16 Our current SMP (FPTP) system SMP stands for Single Member Plurality == > SM means that just one person is elected from each riding/constituency/electoral district (ED) == > Plurality means that the candidate with the MOST votes “wins” the seat. FPTP stands for First Past The Post A Winner-take-all voting system.

17. 17 Our current SMP (FPTP) system For 2015, our current system divides the country into 338 ED’s with approximately equal numbers of people in each. Our association and interest in parliament is defined by where we live. Instead of ONE election we actually have 338 elections: one MP from each riding. == > The 338 results create our parliament. We don’t actually vote for a government.

18. What’s wrong with the candidate with the most votes winning? == > Half of Canadian voters don’t actually elect anyone == > The “elected” Parliament rarely looks much like how we voted. “In a democratic government, the right of decision belongs to the majority, but the right of representation belongs to all” 18 FVC: FAQ

19. 2008 Federal Election 1.3 Million votes = 49 Seats Greens 940,000 votes = 0 Seats

20. 20

21. 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% Other14,141 100% Total797,5641,486,796 54% http://myvoteshouldcount.ca/ 21

22. 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.

24. 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

25. It’s an election. Doesn’t someone have to lose? Yes, but it shouldn’t be the voters! Generally, half of all those who voted can’t see anyone in Parliament who they helped elect. In New Zealand’s 2011 election, using a PR electoral system, 97% of those voting helped elect someone. 25 FVC: FAQ

27. Would PR make our system more unstable? We’ve had more elections since WWII than Italy (supposed particularly unstable). SMP is sensitive to small shifts in voter preferences, especially in “swing ridings”. Leads to more regime changes after elections. == > Difficult for gov’t to address the country’s long-term priorities. 27 FVC: FAQ

28. Won’t this mean constant coalition governments? Gov’ts formed under any voting system represent coalitions of different groups. Our “big tent” parties are already coalitions. Coalition gov’ts require more public and transparent negotiations. The resulting coalitions will represent a true majority of voters. Their policies are more likely to be supported by most voters and remain supported over the long-term. 28 FVC: FAQ

29. Won’t parties multiply like rabbits? Our current parties may restructure, but we’re unlikely to see many more parties. Voters want to support parties with the “heft” to have an impact on policy. Most voting systems require some minimum level of support to get elected – either deliberately or naturally from the design. Parties without substantial support will still find it hard to win seats. 29 FVC: FAQ

30. What effect might PR have on national unity? Should be good for national unity Regional parties get more seats for their popular vote than parties with diffuse or national support with same level of support. Regional parties: Reform and the Bloc National/widespread support: Green Party In 1993, the PC’s got 16% of the vote but only two seats. Should have gotten 47 seats! 30 FVC: FAQ

31. What about representation by women and minorities? < 25% women MPs Puts us abut 54 th in the world. With just one candidate per riding, that person often ends up being a white male. Under PR, parties will be putting forward several candidates in multi-member districts of some kind. Diversity will be easier and more easily rewarded. 31 FVC: FAQ

32. How many countries use PR? > 90 countries use PR (see handout) Includes most European and all Latin American countries. Most countries have used PR for decades –E.g. Ireland and Tasmania have been using it for nearly 100 years. New democracies don’t choose SMP. 32 FVC: FAQ

33. Families of Voting Systems Winner-take-all –SMP/FPTP –AV/IRV – Alternative Vote/Instant Run- off Voting Proportional Voting Systems –PR-List –STV – Single Transferable Vote –Mixed: MMP – Mixed Member Proportional and MMM / Parallel 33 FVC: WhyPR

34. 34 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!

35. 35 Local Representation A supposed “strength” of SMP/FPTP. 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 would get together and decide who to send off to the far away legislature to represent their (similar) interests.

36. 36 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.

37. 37 Local Representation http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation/ebca/pdf/WhitePaper.pdf

38. 38 Local Representation Can an MP or MLA really represent ALL of his or her constituents when they vote as a legislator?

39. 39 Local Representation This ombudsperson role is really about providing“constituency service”. Is it really “representation”?

40. 40 Using our voting system to reflect the will of the electorate is like using a funhouse mirror to reflect your image. Outcomes with SMP are erratic

41. 41 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.

42. BC NDP Support Almost Constant yet outcome unrelated YearLiberalsNDPGreen 19867%43% 0.2% 199133%41%1% 199642%39%2% 200158%22%12% 200546%42%9% 200946%42%8% 201344%40%8% 42

43. 43 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.

45. 45 North of the Malahat (2005)

46. 46 Okanagan (2005)

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

49. 49 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).

50. 50 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 hence ==> Policy changes will be more stable over the long-term.

51. 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 148 51

52. If you and your neighbour don’t agree politically, the only way that each of you can be properly represented in Parliament (or 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). 52 SMP: Half of the voters are denied the MP they voted for

53. In a modern democracy, each region needs different MPs or MLAs to represent the diverse groups and points of view within it. This would improve local representation. That is, we need multimember districts. This is one essential component of any proportional voting system. 53 Instead: Every vote should affect the outcome

54. What are some PR choices? Three main families: 1.PR-List – vote for parties (candidate lists) 2.Mixed: 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. (Note: Ranked Ballots is not a voting system on its own.)

55. 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, maybe regional, riding. MMP also uses single member ridings. PR-list only uses multi-member ridings.

56. 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 the single member ridings into regions 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.

57. Voting System Components Electoral districts, including how many are elected from each (DM-district magnitude) Ballot, including how voters mark their preference(s) Calculations: how voters’ choices are counted and calculations for determination of which candidates get seats We’ll describe the first two features 57

58. Simple PR-List Ballot Blue Party Red Party Χ Orange Party Green Party 58 Ballot may include names of all party candidates.

59. PR-List Ballot 59 Ballot may include names of all party candidates or just party leader’s name and/or picture Closed List – can only vote for party. Open List – Vote for party via choice of one of the party’s candidates. Flexible List – can vote for the party and accept their candidate ranking OR choose to vote for one of a party’s candidates.

60. 10 Member Region 60 Results of the popular vote PR-List results closely match the popular vote

61. SMP / FPTP Ballot Art Scallion (Blue) Sandy Rouge (Red) Χ Ellen Holland (Orange) Victor Oak (Green) 61 Party lists of ONE person

62. FPTP results 62 Single Member Plurality (SMP) Disproportionate Results

63. AV / IRV Ballot Art Scallion (Blue) 2 Sandy Rouge (Red) 4 Ellen Holland (Orange)1 Victor Oak (Green)3 63 Party lists of ONE person

64. Calculations: 1.If someone gets a “quota” of 50% + 1 of the vote then they get the seat. 2.If not, then person with the fewest votes is eliminated. Their ballots are then transferred to the next choice marked. 3.Repeat until someone reaches the quota or there isjust one person left. 64 AV / IRV Ballot

65. AV / IRV results 65 Party Outcomes often similar to SMP / FPTP Disproportionate Results

66. Ranked/Preferential Ballot Can be used as a component of any PR voting system, but is not a voting system on its own. Voting can be sincere instead of “strategic” Prevents the election of unpopular candidates. Eliminates vote splitting within the EDs Requires candidates to court the supporters of other candidates/parties == > leads to more civil & meaningful debate 66

67. STV Ballot 67 Party lists of several persons Voters assign ranks to individual candidates - not parties Art Scallion (Blue)3 Bev Oyster (Blue)2 Martin Moonlight (Blue)1 Sandy Rouge (Red)4 Walter Water (Red)6 Lee Feather (Red)5 Bill General (Orange)7 Ellen Holland (Orange)9 Jack Nimble (Orange) Heather Maple (Green)8 Victor Oak (Green)

68. STV - Small Regions 68 Teams of MLAs in each region provides proportionality, both locally and overall Proportional Results

69. MMP Ballot 1) Local Member - SMP Art Scallion (Blue) Sandy Rouge (Red) Χ Ellen Holland (Orange) Victor Oak (Green) 69 Party lists of ONE person within single member ridings

70. MMP Ballot 1) Local Member - AV Art Scallion (Blue) 2 Sandy Rouge (Red) 4 Ellen Holland (Orange)1 Victor Oak (Green)3 70 Party lists of ONE person within single member ridings

71. 2) MMP Ballot – Closed List 71 Party lists of several persons Blue Party Χ Red Party Orange Party Green Party Art Scallion Sandy Rouge Bill General Heather Maple Bev Oyster Walter Water Ellen Holland Victor Oak Martin Moonlight Lee Feather Jack Nimble Vote ONLY for the preferred party

72. 2) MMP Ballot – Open List 72 Party lists of several persons Blue Party Red Party Orange Party Green Party Art Scallion Sandy Rouge Bill General Heather Maple Bev Oyster Walter Water Ellen Holland Victor Oak Martin Moonlight Χ Lee Feather Jack Nimble Vote for preferred candidate also counts for party vote.

73. 73 Party lists of several persons Blue Party Χ Red Party Orange Party Green Party Art Scallion Sandy Rouge Bill General Heather Maple Bev Oyster Walter Water Ellen Holland Victor Oak Martin Moonlight Lee Feather Jack Nimble 2) MMP Ballot – Flexible List Choose party OR candidate

74. 74 Party lists of several persons Blue Party Red Party Orange Party Green Party Art Scallion Sandy Rouge Bill General Heather Maple Bev Oyster Walter Water Ellen Holland Victor Oak Martin Moonlight Χ Lee Feather Jack Nimble 2) MMP Ballot – Flexible List Choose party OR candidate

75. MMP – A Two Tier System 75 Disproportional results in the first tier are compensated by results in the second First Tier (like FPTP or AV) Second Tier Regional List

76. FVC Videos MMP – with 16 MP regions and plurality in the single member ridings Jenkins – AV+ is an MMP model with 8 MP regions and ranked ballots in the single member ridings Dion’s P3 – Small multi-members ridings like STV BUT uses a ranked ballot for parties with a candidate choice ONLY for the first preference party. Hopefully an STV video will also be made. 76

77. 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.

78. Websites Fair Vote Canada: www.fairvote.ca Resources at: www.fairvote.ca/resources/ Fair Voting BC: fairvotingbc.com Elections BC: www.elections.bc.ca Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada: http://www.fairvote.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ Law-Commission-of-Canada-Report.pdf BC White Paper on Electoral Boundary Reform: http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation/ebca/pdf/WhitePaper.pdf

79. 79