Election Canada 2006 - The President's Blog

Proportional voting provides better voice

2006-02-13T17:33:00.000-05:00

editorial from the York Region Era Banner - Newmarket,Ontario,Canada

http://www.yorkregion.com/yr/yr4/YR_News/Columns/story/3271523p-3788712c.html

Jan 19, 2006

Name a local priority on which you would concentrate if you are sent to Ottawa Jan. 23, a voter asked hopefuls in Thornhill during an all-candidates meeting last week.

It wasn't as much a question as a plea that came after 90 minutes of candidates regurgitating party lines, interspersed with shots at opponents and their leaders.

Let's face it, with few exceptions, most voters cast their ballots for a party or its leader. Local candidates are most often viewed as the embodiment of national party policy.

There's nothing wrong with casting your ballot for the party, rather than the candidate.

The problem is with our electoral system.

And despite a grassroots campaign that appears to be gaining momentum, no one is rushing to fix it.

The solution is proportional representation.

Politicians always seem to support the concept in principle but, like Senate reform, no one ever seems to act on it.

In a nutshell, parties win seats in legislature in proportion to their share of the votes cast. A party that receives 25 per cent of the national vote should occupy 25 per cent of the seats in Parliament.

It's a proven system that has been in use in European nations and others around the globe since the beginning of the last century. New Zealand switched to mixed member proportional representation in 1993.

The idea is being promoted by groups across Canada, including Fair Vote Canada, a multi-partisan citizens' campaign for voting system reform.

The organization makes a good case, referring to June 2004 federal election in which more than 500,000 votes were cast for Green Party candidates across the country yet not one was elected. Meanwhile, fewer Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada alone elected 22 MPs.

Also during the last election:

· The Liberals garnered just 7 per cent more of the popular vote than the Conservatives -- 36.7 per cent versus 29.6 per cent -- but ended up with 35 per cent more seats in the House.

· Even though the NDP recorded more of the popular vote than the Bloc QuÈbÈcois, they won just 19 seats versus the Bloc's 54.

It's similar to what prompted the move toward change in New Zealand: back-to-back elections in which the National Party retained power by winning more seats in Parliament despite the opposition Labour Party earning more votes across the nation.

Backed by a committee of prominent Canadians, including former Ontario Lieutenant Governor Lincoln Alexander and York Region Newspaper Group columnist David Suzuki, Fair Vote Canada last week called on our next government to initiate a public consultation process on government reform and hold a referendum, allowing Canadians to decide on the best voting system.

"It's time to stop dodging the issue," said Wayne Smith, president of Fair Vote Canada. "The 60 per cent of the electorate who still vote are about to go to the polls again. We will try to elect a representative Parliament and we will fail because the voting system will distort what we say."

If we're voting along party lines anyway, let's adopt a purer system that better reflects what voters really want.

Proportional representation would lead to a House of Commons that's more in line with the way Canadians vote than does our current first-past-the-post system.

It would also drive up voter turnout, experts say, as it means a vote for a party other than the big three would no longer be considered a protest vote. It would count as much as one cast for the Conservative, Liberal or NDP would.

We choose the way we are governed. It's time we chose a better way to elect those who represent us.

The body unpolitic

2006-01-29T10:14:00.000-05:00

The Globe and Mail, January 27, 2006

RICK SALUTIN

From my leftish viewpoint, I'd say this new Parliament presents a great opportunity --and I don't t just mean the opportunity to avoid disaster.

When Paul Martin began whanging that guitar on Sunday night before the election, I couldn't imagine anyone voting for him or his party next day. He had the manic look in his eye of Richard Reed, the shoe bomber: 'Look, I'm blowing myself up, and everyone around me, too.' It isn't over till the jittery guy strums, and this was over. Yet voters saw past it and other distractions. They delivered what seemed like a unified message from a single mind: You- go sit in the corner. You-you're in charge, but only by default. The rest of you - act nice.

People keep talking about the eerily co-ordinated quality of the result, as if voters found away to act as appendages of the same body. Hmm, the body politic. Environics pollster Michael Adams sort of takes credit for it on behalf of his profession, saying pollsters provided ongoing feedback by which people could adjust their votes. Polls as a self-non-fulfilling prophecy. I'm dubious, but it's charming how everyone finds a way to make themselves the hero of the movie.

And in democratic terms, it wasn't nearly as bad as most elections. The Conservatives, with 36 per cent of the votes, got "only" 40 per cent of seats. The Liberals, with 30 per cent of votes, got 33 per cent of seats. The NDP, with 17 per cent of the vote, got 9 per cent of seats (better than last time, when they got 6 per cent of seats for 16 per cent of votes). And the Bloc Québécois, happily, got 16 per cent of seats for just 10 percent of votes. The Greens, with 4.5 per cent of the vote, got, um, well, too bad.

But it could have been worse. If the Tories gleaned just 2 per cent, more of the vote, reaching 38 per cent, they might have won the "solid majority" of seats with which Chrétien Liberals were rewarded in 1997. Have you noticed how majority has been defined down to 38 per cent from the fusty old mark of 50-per-cent-plus-one? When did that happen? These kinds of stats have been available for the entire history of our estimable, British-based electoral system, described by Churchill and innumerable others quoting him, as "the worst form of government except all those other forms. . ." Yet, they were rarely cited in election reporting in the past, as if it was unseemly, like mentioning child poverty too loudly or spitting in the punchbowl. Now, at least it's acceptable.

But hopeful? Opportunities? I'm saying this Parliament has more potential for creative, democratic compromise than all those sclerotic bodies that had a majority elected by a minority that then got to do all the damage it wanted, unimpeded, for four or five years. Normally you don't even talk about the potential of a Parliament. Everyone focuses on the government. That changes when there is a fractured, minority situation.

Take democratic reform itself. The Harper conservatives, i.e. the old Reform Party, put democratic change on the national agenda long before other parties. But they were not keen on proportional representation (PR), where the number of reps actually jibes with votes cast. That's because they were from the West, which "wanted in." PR might have meant even less power, in terms of members elected, than they had. So they demanded Senate reform instead, to give more power to less-populous provinces like Alberta. But now they're morphing into a national party, and PR may seem less of a threat. (I grant a wishful quality is seeping in here.) Now, what if other parties take the lead on PR? Could Stephen Harper and his government buy in? Especially if they proposed and got in return, Senate reform to solidify the role of the regions and provinces?

Or take a national child-care program, in my view the biggest loss in the Liberal downfall. What if the losing parties, who all favour it, impose it? They have the votes to do so. But rather than let his government fall on the matter, what if Mr. Harper agreed to it, on condition that his own child-care subsidy, or tax benefit, be enacted, too - the one (beer and popcorn) meant to help people who want to keep their young kids at home?

I agree that this Parliament is rife with possibility. Remember, this is not the outcome we expected, lo, those many weeks ago when the election was called.

Where are the deals to be made? Since the situation is unimaginable, we may as well think the unthinkable.

The opposition has the power to outvote the government, or even to take it over. But to do it, they must cooperate. Darn.

Only the Liberals hold the balance of power with the government. But the NDP and the Bloc Québécois may be better off than they seem.

True, the NDP and the Liberals together don't make it.

The Liberals and the Bloc, together with the Independent, hold a bare majority of seats, but that's a hard deal to make and harder to keep together.

The Bloc and the NDP are a much better match. They are both Social Democratic parties, and they agree on most things, including daycare and healthcare.

The NDP and the Bloc together could deal with either the Liberals or Harper. They might even be able to play them off against each other.

Duceppe is well respected in English Canada. He is an old hand, and always performs well in the leaders' debates. Although resolute in promoting his party's line, he seems neither agressive nor unreasonable.

The problem, of course is that the Bloc have this foible - they want to take apart the country. That makes them coalition poison, and they themselves have never been interested in coalition. Greasing the wheels of confederation is not what they are there for.

At least that's what they claim. Their bottom line is they "will do what's in the best interests of Quebeckers." That's as admirable as it is vague.

We would have to agree to disagree about all that for a while, so no change on the unity front.

Looking ahead, the Bloc may decide it's a good time to deal, and may want to hedge their bets. When your polls are trending down, proportional representation starts to look mighty fine.

The game's afoot.

The prize is democracy.

Wayne

P.S. We can love the Senate because it is harmless, like the Queen. A slightly elected Senate could start taking itself way too seriously and become a democratic nightmare.

Changing the Senate means changing the Constitution, or you're cheating. If Harper is going to open up that bag of bees, it will have to be done right, with a complete restructuring and re-imagining of the Upper House - by the people of Canada.

A proportionally elected Senate would be lovely, but no substitute for a fair voting system in the House of Commons. That's where the government is.

More PR in the local press

2006-01-28T16:03:00.000-05:00

Editorial in Northumberland Today (Cobourg and Port Hope):

Majority rules? Not in Canada - pity

"In Canada, under our present electoral system, each citizen does not have an equal say in federal and provincial elections.

The web site for Fair Vote Canada offers food for thought: "In the (2004) federal election, more than a half-million Green Party voters across the country elected no one. Meanwhile, fewer than a half-million Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada alone elected 22 MPs. Saskatchewan voters elected 13 Conservative MPs and Quebec elected none, even though almost twice as many voted Conservative in Quebec.

“In the Prairie Provinces, Liberals cast half as many votes as Conservatives, but elected only one-seventh as many MPs."

This proves that every party suffers from the skewing effect of the "first past the post" system we now have.

Canada is one of only three leading democratic nations that still uses this antiquated means of electing "representatives." The others are the U.S. and Britain.

Proportional representation is not representation by population. In a country where huge sections largely because of their inhospitable weather patterns are sparsely inhabited, that would not work, since even more power would be vested in large cities at the expense of those who live in rural or remote parts of the country.

It’s not clear at this time just how the politics of proportional representation would work at the constituency level, but it would be wonderful if our newly elected federal government would set up a committee to study this system so that Canadians could feel that every vote counts and that the government they elect truly reflects the opinions and priorities of the electorate.

column in the Sherwood Park News (Alberta)

Between the Lines - Dave S. Clark
Was the Christmas election really that bad?

Wednesday January 25, 2006

Sherwood Park News — If you have been paying attention to the election this year, you have probably heard a lot about proportional representation, as both the Green Party and the NDP have made numerous mentions of it.

But with all the talk of it, I haven’t seen or heard too many explanations of how the system actually works.

When we elect one candidate from each riding all the votes for every other candidates are basically useless. They don’t count towards anything. Popular votes are used as statistics by the media as a gauge for how much support each party has gained or lost, but that’s about it.

Under a proportional representation system, a voter chooses the party rather than a candidate. There are several different versions of this system, but one also has the voter select candidates from a list in priority of who they would like to see in office.

[Every proportional system proposed for Canada allows voters to vote for individual local candidates. - Wayne]

The number of seats each party receives is based directly on the number of votes the entire public gives them.

For example, in Alberta, we are now represented completely by Conservative MPs. There were many people in the province that voted Liberal, NDP and Green, yet those parties were awarded no seats.

Under PR, each of those parties would have a number of MPs elected from Alberta.

A possible downside is fringe parties may be able to sneak in a seat or two with enough support. It may not be a bad thing, but who knows what parties would come out of the woodwork if they knew there was a chance at winning a seat or two.

Many European democratic countries already have a system like this in place.

If you want more information on how it all works, visit www.fairvotecanada.org and read up on it.

letter to the editor of the Brockville Recorder & Times

Dear Editor:

Elections, at all three levels, frustrate me to no end, and Monday’s federal election was no different. Your editorial, "Canada Needs a Conservative government", R&T Jan.20/06 didn’t help much to make me feel any better about voting on election day. Your main reason for supporting the Conservatives is "Our democracy needs renewal" or "change is needed in Ottawa". At the same time, you state, "Patronage and pork-barreling are messy, but they will always be part of political life". Does this mean that the Conservatives will be no different than the Liberals in the future? You give credit to Steve Armstrong, and David Lee for having "run spirited campaigns" and "running for a party that has no chance of winning". Does this mean that the 7,945 NDP voters and 3,008 Green voters in Leeds and Grenville supported losers and might as well have stayed home?

All parties, during the campaign, had platforms on democratic reform, which includes electoral reform, which was rarely mentioned by the two main parties. Why would they? The current system works for the large parties, but it doesn’t work for most voters. Gordon Gibson writes "We need a system that encourages people to vote for the candidates they love, instead of against the candidates they hate. But the current system tends to produce majorities, and winning politicians love that because majorities deliver absolute power." G&M Jan.24/06.

Our present system, first-past-the-post, worked for Canada in the past, but we are an entirely different country today, made up of many different regions, highly educated, a very diverse people, etc., who would like to have their ideas debated in Parliament. Is this asking too much? Is it too much to ask to have my vote count? With some sort of proportional representation in this last election, the Conservatives would have had 113 seats, not 124, the Liberals 93 seats, not 103, the NDP 59 seats, not 29, the Bloc 31, not 51, and the Greens 12, not 0. Most countries use systems that have a degree of proportionality, so why not Canada? Harper and the Conservatives have 36.3% of the popular vote, and that does not give them a mandate to forge ahead with their program. It’s high time that Canada as a country moves towards electoral reforms. I just hope that our MP, Gord Brown, who is also a member of Fair Vote Canada like yours truly, will promote democratic reform in parliament.

Bill Borger
Charleston Lake

article from the Clinton News-Record (Ontario)

"Wow. Pretty close."
Liberal candidate is re-elected in a squeaker

Mark Nonkes, Cheryl Heath, Susan Hundertmark
Wednesday January 25, 2006

Saying the NDP were victims of a “reverse strategic vote” because “a lot of people wanted to teach the Liberals a lesson,” Huron-Bruce NDP candidate Grant Robertson urged party faithful to build membership for the next federal election.

“We increased our raw vote and we increased our percentage vote. There are a lot of people -- thousands in Huron-Bruce -- who want us to speak for them,” he said.

While a close race between the Liberals and Conservatives flip-flopped the lead back and forth until past midnight in Huron-Bruce, Robertson trailed but he saw a four per cent increase in riding support.

“We were all expecting a little bit better tonight. The results are no where reflective of the campaign,” he said.

Robertson said he thought electoral reform to proportional representation would “see a lot more people who can vote for the NDP securely.”

“The main vote was a vote for change and to express disapproval for the Liberals. I saw a great deal of anger in the farm community,” he said.

With a minority Conservative government elected, Robertson predicted an election “sooner than later.”

Read the whole article

column in DurhamRegion.com

Current electoral system isn't fair
Proportional representation would have every vote count

by Danielle Milley
Jan 26, 2006

An election was called, candidates ran, Canadians voted, but did all the votes count?

With every election comes the inevitable discussion about proportional representation (PR). And for good reason too - our current first-past-the-post system simply isn't fair. Parties receive majorities without the majority of the popular vote and the Green Party gets four per cent of the vote and receives no seats.

Based on the popular vote cast Monday, the Conservatives should have 112 seats (not 124) and the Liberals 93 (not 102). These results don't really scream unfair, but those of the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP do.

The Bloc now has 51 seats, when its 10.5 per cent of the popular vote would equal 32 seats. It's worse for the NDP, which has just 29 seats despite 17.5 per cent of the vote working out to 54 members.

The problem with changing to some form of PR nationally is that it would actually hurt the two parties that have formed governments (the Conservatives and Liberals), so neither party is likely to make it part of its mandate. This is why the people of Pickering, Durham and Canada need to get involved and lobby their elected officials to make this an important issue.

Some provinces, including Ontario, are starting to look at electoral reform, including proportional representation.

Under proportional representation (and there are different kinds) our elected bodies would more accurately represent the will of Canadians. Many other western nations have recently changed to some form of PR, including Scotland and New Zealand.

Proponents of PR also argue it could help increase the number of women and minorities elected, which can only benefit our democracy. It might also help to increase voter turnout.

In looking over election statistics leading up to the big day, the province where the national results seemed the most skewed was Saskatchewan. After Monday's vote the Conservatives now have 12 seats and the Liberals two. However the Conservatives received only 48.9 per cent of the popular vote and the Liberals received 22.4 per cent. The 24 per cent for the NDP garnered no seats.

Before Canadians head to the polls again, there needs to be a serious discussion about electoral reform in this country. It seems the only fair thing to do.

Danielle Milley's column appears every third Friday. E-mail dmilley@durhamregion.com

article from Community Press Online (Ontario)

Belleville - Joseph Sahadat announces project following through

Joseph Sahadat, The Green Party of Canada candidate in the Prince Edward-Hastings Riding, celebrated the election results at The Boathouse Restaurant in Belleville.

-----

Monday night, January 23, as Canadians’ decisions unfolded, Joseph announced that the Green Party for the Prince Edward-Hastings riding will continue to promote, and even pressure our MP, Daryl Kramp, to follow through with policies announced during the election that the Green Party supports. Ideas and programs in the Green Party platform that were virtually ignored by the other parties will be continuously presented, and hopefully, discussed.

"We want to announce our 'in between election platform'; Following Through.

-----

To the winner specifically, Joseph said, "We will continue to pursue proportional representation, so expect to hear from us on that issue as well."

Read the whole article

column in the Georgia Straight (Vancouver)

Pro rep coming?
By Matthew Burrows
Publish Date: 26-Jan-2006

Electoral-reform advocate Julian West says he believes “there is an appetite for changing the system”.

“This is the first time since 1988 that a Conservative government has been elected,” West, a member of the national council of Fair Vote Canada, told the Straight. “There’s a lot at stake for them. To stabilize that [minority government], they’re going to want to do something both the Conservatives and the NDP can agree on. Electoral reform is the most obvious thing. They can’t attempt to agree on anything to do with the financial side of things. So, basically, democratic reform of some description is on the table now, because it’s a way for the Conservatives to extend an olive branch to the NDP.”

According to a January 24 news release, Fair Vote Canada highlights several “victims” of the latest federal election. The Conservative party swept Alberta, yet 500,000 Albertans cast their votes elsewhere and “elected no one”, according to Fair Vote president Wayne Smith. In Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, no Conservative MPs were elected despite 400,000 voters voting for them in those centres.

A resurgent NDP attracted one million more votes than the Bloc Québécois, but the voting system gave the Bloc 51 seats and the NDP 29, even though almost 18 percent of Canadians voted NDP. In another anomaly, more than 650,000 Green party voters across the country elected no one, whereas 475,000 Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada elected 20 MPs.

Kennedy Stewart, an SFU political-science instructor and a former NDP candidate, told the Straight that “the current electoral system highlights and enhances separatism” and left many voters who contributed to the popular vote of smaller parties “unrewarded”.

“There is a Balkanization of Parliament,” Stewart said.

He added that the Greens should have 12 seats but have none and are shut out as they were in June 2004. They get $1.75 per vote through Canada’s publicly financed electoral-funding system, but Stewart said “that doesn’t mean much with no voice in Parliament.”

Reelected Vancouver Quadra Liberal MP Stephen Owen told the Straight he finds the current electoral system “bizarre”.

“I’m an advocate of electoral reform,” Owen said. “The parliamentary committee was ready to consider it, but then we had this unnecessary election. But I will be in a position to advocate strongly for this, especially given the fact there are seven jurisdictions in Canada now considering some kind of electoral reform.”

Both West and Stewart believe a federal system could be implemented by a simple act of Parliament, as long as the number of seats each province is allocated is not altered.

Why would a Conservative support proportional representation?

2006-01-27T20:05:00.000-05:00

Sure, the NDP and the Green party get screwed under first-past-the-post. Who cares? Why would a Conservative party, or the Liberal party for that matter, support a proportional voting system?

Canada held seven general elections between 1980 and 2004. The results were two majority Progressive Conservative governments (including the 'landslide' of 1984 in which Brian Mulroney's party received a bare majority of the popular vote, the only modern-era government to do so), four majority Liberal governments under Trudeau and Chrétien, and the Liberal minority government of Paul Martin.

Let's take a look at the numbers.

'Wasted votes' here means votes for candidates who were not elected. (The concept could be expanded to include surplus votes for candidates who were elected.)

The percentages are indeed horrendous for the NDP. Almost four out of five NDP votes went down the drain. The contrast between the nationally-dispersed NDP and the regionally-concentrated Bloc is striking. The Bloc has elected more MPs than the NDP, with fewer than half the votes.

The Green Party is in a transition state. Although they have emerged from 'fringe party' status, they have not yet elected anyone. Their wasted vote total will go up by about 650,000 with the results from the 2006 election.

But what is immediately clear from this chart is that most wasted votes are cast for the major parties, and the largest group of unrepresented voters are conservative party supporters.

Interestingly, conservative parties received more votes than the Liberals during this period, but lost five elections to two. This had something to do with the fracture of the right into PC and Reform elements, but mostly had to do with the greater efficiency of the Liberal vote in producing seats, and also with regional ghettoization of the parties caused by the voting system.

Let's look at that more closely. Here is the regional breakdown for Ontario.

Here we see why the Liberals are the 'natural governing party'. They captured almost all the seats in Canada's largest regional block, with half the votes. Millions of conservative voters were robbed of representation, while the news analysts explained patiently how the Reform Party and Canadian Alliance just couldn’t get any support in Ontario.

Although small parties are devastated by our winner-take-all voting system, we can see that major party voters are also ripped off, and conservative voters are the largest group of victims.

Looking at these charts, another striking point is that even the Liberals and Bloc Québécois, who were strongly over-represented in Parliament, still had significant numbers of wasted votes.

This brings up a central point. Proportional representation and fair voting reform are not about what is good or bad for any political party. They are about what is good for voters. Each of the 40,000,000 wasted votes listed above means a voter who was 'represented' in Parliament by someone they voted against.

Under proportional representation, almost every vote cast actually helps to elect someone. So, the real answer to the question, "Why support proportional representation?", is, "Because it's the right thing to do for Canadian voters."

Wayne Smith, President
Fair Vote Canada

The separatist curve ball - Walrus, February 2006

2006-01-27T17:54:00.000-05:00

To the editors of The Walrus;

Joan Bryden correctly points out that it is the voting system, not the voters, that gave the Bloc Québécois its "formidable presence" as a spoiler in Canadian politics. According to the votes cast by Quebeckers, the Bloc should have 32 seats, not 51, in the new Parliament. Stephen Harper is delighted to have 10 seats in Québec, but he would have 18 if every vote counted. Federalist voters in Québec were also robbed of three Liberal MPs, six New Democrats, and three Greens by our obsolete, first-past-the-post voting system.

But Bryden falls off the rails when she suggests that proportional representation would not be good for stability because it produces "minority governments in perpetuity". Leaving aside the fact that Canada has done very well under minority governments, achieving Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan and our new flag, for example, during the minority-rule days of Lester Pearson, a quick glance at the 80 or so modern industrial democracies around the world that have been using proportional voting systems for most of the last century, including all the best-run countries in the world, countries such as Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Holland, will reveal that they invariably have effective, stable, coalition governments that represent a true majority of the voters.

This can be seen clearly in the case of New Zealand, which changed a decade ago from a system like ours to the type of mixed member proportional system developed in Germany after WWII. They were prompted to make the change after two elections in a row where the party with the most votes lost the election, not an uncommon occurrence under first-past-the-post. Under proportional representation, New Zealand immediately went to coalition government. They also started electing more women, more Maori people, and more minorities of all sorts, so that their Parliament now much better represents the diversity of their society. This is a not-inconsiderable side benefit of proportional representation, and one that is peculiarly relevant to Canada.

Minority government as we know it is not a feature of proportional representation, but a product of our current, winner-take-all voting system, as are distorted regionalism and phony-majority, single-party monopoly governments that breed arrogance and corruption. Our antiquated voting system still serves the interests of some politicians, but it no longer serves the interests of Canada and Canadians, and it must go. Modern, fair, proportional voting is coming to Canada, because Canadian voters are beginning to demand it.

Wayne Smith, President
Fair Vote Canada
416-407-7009
Wayne.Smith@FairVoteCanada.org

look at the maps

2006-01-26T20:21:00.000-05:00

The only way I've found so far to see the Conservatives' remarkable urban problem is to look at the maps:

http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/reference/elections/election2006

Go to Ontario - Toronto. The only Conservative seats in the GTA are on its fringes. A solid red block. Remarkable.

Go to Quebec - Montreal. Not one Conservative. Zoom out. Still none, except eastern Ontario. Zoom out again. Not a one between Pontiac and Mégantic--L'Érable. Truly remarkable.

The Vancouver map, however, shows no problem.

Wilfred A. Day

some numbers

2006-01-26T20:17:00.000-05:00

'just ran a script on the preliminary data (tab-delimited file) available
from Elections Canada... 'thought you'd be interested:

Total number of votes: 14,811,325
Votes that elected an M.P: 7,226,709 (48.79%)
Votes that didn't elect anyone: 7,584,616 (51.21%)

Also posted more info to my own Blog: http://cyberwuff.livejournal.com/
Keep up the good work.

Mike.

Tories win in “unfair” election

2006-01-26T15:36:00.000-05:00

Monday Magazine
26 Jan-1 Feb 2006
Victoria, BC

The non-partisan group Fair Vote Canada points out that a million more Canadians voted for the New Democratic Party than voted for the Bloc Quebecois. But under our first-past-the-post system, the NDP only wins 29 seats, compared to the Bloc’s 51. And voters for the Green Party, which got over 650,000 votes, will continue to be unrepresented in the Parliament.

If we had voted under a different electoral system that better reflects the popular vote – such as a Single Transferable Vote or a Mixed Member Proportional system – Stephen Harper would still be the country’s new prime minister, but his Conservative party would hold significantly fewer seats. The NDP would pick up another 30 seats, giving them the balance of power, and the Bloc would have 20 fewer. And the house would have 12 Greens.

Of course, under a different system, there would be less incentive to vote strategically and the outcome might be even more different.

“We’re not getting the Parliament we vote for,” say Wendy Bergerud, an alumnus of B. C.’s citizen’s [sic] assembly, the group that recommended adopting the STV for provincial election, and a member of the Victoria chapter of Fair Vote Canada. “I think there’s a real danger if we continue with our current system because it encourages regionalism. I think it encourages our country to break up.”

A proportional system would likely result in more parties entering politics and more minority governments, she says. Minority governments are sometimes seen as unstable in the short run, she says, but they make it harder to make radical changes, which will give the country more long-term stability.

“Stephen Harper’s no dummy,” says Wayne Smith, the president of Fair Vote Canada. “He knows the system’s unfair.” It may not, however, be in Harper’s interest (or the interest of anyone else who has a shot at forming a majority government with fewer than 50 percent of the votes) to change the system.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said before the election his party won’t support another party in the Parliament unless they back reforming the electoral system. Without the balance of power, however, he won’t be in a position to set that condition. “He’s not in as strong a position as he ought to be,” says Smith.

Despite the setback, he adds, the system is ripe for change and it will happen eventually. “We’ll get a [better] voting system when people demand it,” he says. “In the long run we’re extremely optimistic. We think this is something whose time has come.”

Wayne replies.

Andrew;

Thank you for your article on the problems with our obsolete voting system, and for mentioning the work of Fair Vote Canada.

As you correctly point out, the NDP and Green party got shafted again as usual in this election. Lest your readers think that proportional representation is all about helping small parties, though, let me hasten to add that winner-take-all voting is bad for every party, and bad for our country.

The Conservatives took every seat in Alberta this time with 65% of the votes, so 500,000 mostly Liberal voters in Alberta got nothing for their vote. Another half-million Conservative voters elected no one at all in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. There will be no one from these cities in the government caucus, let alone the cabinet. A new deal for cities, indeed!

But electoral reform isn't about what's good for political parties. It's about what's good for voters. Under the current system, most of us vote for people who don't get elected, so we end up with a government that most of us didn't vote for.

Thanks for spreading the word that a better way is possible, and the time for change has come!

Wayne Smith, President
Fair Vote Canada
Wayne.Smith@FairVoteCanada.org

What if Canada had a different way of electing MPs?

2006-01-26T15:19:00.000-05:00

By Robert Sheppard, CBC.ca Reality Check Team | January 24, 2006 | More Reality Check

Take one look at the new electoral map and you realize right away that it is not only jarringly colour-coded but also politically misleading.

Great swaths of NDP orange, Liberal red and Conservative blue fairly jump out of our lonely northern terrain as if they were part of some medieval war plan. At first glance you have NDP orange shooting right up the left coast and Liberal red, flowing in a huge majestic line from Nunavut in the central Arctic down through middle Manitoba and along the northern shores of Superior and Georgian Bay into the Ontario heartland. The two together look like they have the blue Conservative beast encircled in its Prairie stronghold. While in Quebec the teal blue of the Bloc Québécois rises up from its base along the Ottawa River like a stylized fleur-de-lis.

The imagery is all wrong, of course (way too much geography). The reality is, Stephen Harper's Conservatives scored a paper-thin minority albeit with impressive national representation across the country. In fact, they hold key ridings in every province but P.E.I. and have no shortage of regional cabinet material to choose from. The underlying reality, however, is also misleading.

As the non-partisan group Fair Vote Canada likes to point out, our first-past-the-post electoral system, in which we like to revel in all those close three-way races on election night, tends to provide enough distortions all on its own. Consider the fact that, in the current election, the NDP won about a million more votes than the Bloc but took only 29 seats to the BQ's 51. Or that the Green party attracted more than 650,000 voters and won no seats while the Liberals' 475,000 voters in Atlantic Canada produced 20 MPs.

Just wasteful politicking you say? Get the Greens to concentrate, Bloc-like, on only a relative handful of ridings instead of all 308 and perhaps they will achieve electoral success on their own. Well, maybe. But is it right that the Conservatives win three times as many votes as the Liberals in the Prairies and take nearly 10 times the seats? Or that the Conservatives earn nearly half a million votes in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver and yet are totally shut out of the big three urban centres?

Fair Vote's solution is some form of proportional representation, or PR, a system in place in New Zealand, Israel and some big European countries like Germany. It's an idea that bubbled to the surface in the 2004 election and kind of did again this time. The NDP's Jack Layton is a big PR guy and even suggested back in December it would be the price of his party's support in a minority Parliament. The problem is he doesn't quite have the numbers now to hold that balance of power. (The math: 124 Conservatives and 29 NDP are two votes short of a majority.) But there could be defections or resignations on the Liberal or Bloc side that will end up giving the NDP more minority clout - and Harper did say at least once during the campaign he'd be open to having some discussion on PR with Layton.

Read the whole article

Wayne's reply posted to CBC.ca

Thank you for your attention to the critical issue of electoral reform for Canada, and for mentioning the work of Fair Vote Canada.

As Robert Sheppard points out, our current voting system distorts the message that voters send at election time, and in particular, it exaggerates and distorts the regional distribution of our votes. As Sheppard says, "The imagery is all wrong."

This is a serious matter for national unity. The inability of the Liberals to elect western MPs for the last decade, in spite of the fact that they get a quarter of the votes in the west, even in Alberta, has contributed greatly to western dissatisfaction with Canada, and has lead to cries of "The West wants in!" Meanwhile, the significant over-representation of the Bloc Québécois has meant that federalist voices have been stifled in Québec.

Sheppard is right again when he says, "The underlying reality, however, is also misleading." Our winner-take-all system leaves huge blocks of voters unrepresented. In this election, the Conservatives took every seat in Alberta with 65% of the votes. The 500,000 Alberta voters who voted otherwise are unrepresented in Parliament.

Most striking in this election is the total exclusion of our largest cities from the government caucus. Almost half a million Conservative voters in and around Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver elected no one at all. There will be no cabinet minister from any of these cities in the new government. A new deal for cities indeed!

I could quibble with a few points in the article. Sheppard says, "Layton's idea is simpler. He'd keep the current first-past-the-post balloting and then just add 100 seats, which would be divvied up based on popular vote. You win 30 per cent of the vote, you get 30 extra seats which the party allocates as it sees fit."

Well, not quite. The Mixed Member Proportional system advocated by the NDP, and also by the Law Commission of Canada, an independent federal agency that recently conluded a two-year study of our voting system, is a fully proportional system based on the model developed in Germany after WWII, and recently adopted in New Zealand, Scotland and Wales. Although it retains the use of our familiar single-member ridings, it is a fully proportional system, so if a party gets 30% of the votes, they will end up with 30% of the seats.

More serious is the false implication that under this type of system a party will have the ability to "allocate" seats "as it sees fit." This common misunderstanding gives rise to concerns that political parties will have too much power under this form of PR, and voters will lose the ability to decide who goes to Parliament.

In fact, under this type of system, each party puts up a list of candidates, and voters get to decide which list to vote for, and in some cases, who will rise to the top of the list, as well as voting for their local riding member.

This illustrates the tremendous need for public education on this topic. Although Fair Vote Canada has been encouraged by the explosion of awareness of the need for fair voting reform that became evident during this election campaign, most Canadians are still unaware that there are other ways to vote, that proportional voting has been the normal way of doing things for most industrial democracies for most of the last century, and that the frustration we feel with politics and politicians is largely caused by the fact that we don't get the government we vote for.

Fair Vote Canada is not selling any particular voting system. We are calling for a process of public education and consultation leading to a referendum, so Canadians can choose a modern, fair, proportional voting system for Canada.

Thank you again for contributing to the dialogue! I hope you will continue to learn about this problem and promote discussion on this topic.

Wayne Smith, President
Fair Vote Canada
www.FairVote.Ca

And NOW magazine

2006-01-25T01:47:00.000-05:00

Op-ed in NOW magazine:

ELECTORAL DYSFUNCTION: THERE IS A CURE

2006 election results show first-past-the-post has to go

By Larry Gordon

Did we really need to suffer yet another train wreck for democracy before realizing that first-past-the-post voting is a hazard to the very life of our country?

Voters should take a close look at the smoking ruins of this latest electoral disaster. It’s not a pretty sight—for example, seeing the NDP win one million more votes than the Bloc, but gain 22 fewer seats, or watching a growing host of Green Party supporters denied even a single MP in Ottawa.

The electoral system imposed on Canadians—it was never chosen by voters—simply doesn’t work, at least not as advertised. Every Canadian child is taught that we live in a democracy, with equal votes for everyone and majority rule. In fact, our government proudly sends advisors to developing nations to preach these democratic principles, which is rich, given that we don’t apply them to our own elections.

The lesson from January 23 is the same lesson from every prior election in Canadian history. Our antiquated winner-take-all voting system makes a complete hash of representative democracy. By design, only one party’s supporters in each riding can send an MP to Ottawa. Tough luck to everyone else.

Multiply that inequity by 308 ridings, with more than six million voters casting wasted votes that elect no one, and the resulting Parliament is a democratic farce.

Just how far have we drifted from the cherished principle of equal votes for all? Consider the following outcomes in this election.

More than 650,000 Canadians voted for the Green Party, but were not able to send a single MP to Parliament. Meanwhile, 475,000 Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada elected 20 MPs.

In the prairie provinces, Conservatives got three times as many votes as the Liberals, but won nearly ten times as many seats. In Alberta, the half million people who voted other than Conservative elected no one to Parliament.

Toronto will not have a single MP in the governing caucus, let along cabinet, even though a quarter-million Torontonians voted for the winning party. Neither will Montreal or Vancouver. Talk about a new deal for cities!

If our voting system treated voters equally, regardless of partisanship or place of residence, then every party would need about the same number of votes to elect an MP. That would be democracy, but this is what our system actually coughed up:

Bloc: 1 MP per 30,432 votes
Conservatives: 1 MP per 43,305 votes
Liberals: 1 MP per 43,457 votes
NDP: 1 MP per 89,333 votes
Greens: 0 MPs for 665,876 votes

These twisted results defy common sense, let alone democratic principles.

Let’s look at another part of the wreckage. Because of the huge portion of wasted votes that elect no one, some parties gain far more seats than deserved, while others get too few or none at all. The effect of these distorted results is that Canadians very rarely experience legitimate majority government, in fact only four times since World War One.

Had the same votes been cast under a fair voting system, based on proportional representation, Fair Vote Canada projected that the seat allocation would have been approximately as follows:

Conservatives (36.3% of the popular vote): 113 seats (not 124)
Liberals (30.1% of the popular vote): 93 seats (not 102)
NDP (17.5% of the popular vote): 59 seats (not 29)
Bloc (10.5% of the popular vote): 31 seats (not 51)
Greens: (4.5% of the popular vote): 12 seats (not 0)

Would fair results matter? This projection indicates that a Liberal, NDP, and Green coalition would have held a majority of seats. But keep in mind, with a different voting system, people will vote differently. Had Canadians actually used a fair voting system, voting patterns would have been different. The need for strategic voting would disappear and very likely more people would vote.

Does Canada have a terminal case of electoral dysfunction?

No, there is a cure—the introduction of a fair voting system, a Canadian version of proportional representation (PR)—and that cure is within reach.

Jack Layton could choose to be the electorate’s champion, put electoral reform at the top of his negotiation agenda with the Conservatives, and play hardball. He could hardly be expected to wring a concession to simply introduce a PR system, but there may be an opening—one that should be seized—to set up a citizen-driven reform process. In past years, the Alliance supported a national referendum on a new voting system. At one point, the current Conservative Party was prepared to support a national citizens’ assembly and referendum process for electoral reform. Stephen Harper has shown no recent indication of going that direction of his own volition. It remains to be seen whether Jack Layton is ready to give it a strong push.

Another scenario is unfolding right here in Ontario. The McGuinty government has promised an independent citizens’ assembly and referendum process for provincial voting reform. Very likely, that assembly will be sitting before the year is out, and Ontarians will have a referendum on a new voting system with the next provincial election in October 2007.

As the dust settles on the federal electoral disaster, Ontarians should turn their full attention this year to ensuring this province becomes the birthplace of Canadian PR and fair voting. That means watchdogging the provincial government in the coming months to ensure a fair, citizen-driven process. Once that process is secured, it’s up to us to press for a strong PR alternative and then win the expected 2007 referendum.

Despite the dismal and undemocratic results on Monday night, we now have an unprecedented opportunity. Democracy has always been a do-it-yourself project, and those who want it to happen must make electoral reform our number one project in the coming year.

The Star, The Globe, The Citizen, The National Post, The Straight Goods, The CBC, rabble.ca, and the Oakville Beaver

2006-01-25T00:59:00.000-05:00

from The Toronto Star

Stacked vote creates some sure losers
Winner-take-all system also silences urban, left

Jan. 23, 2006. 01:00 AM

CHANTAL HEBERT

OTTAWA On at least one fundamental score, this is, once again, not going to be an election for the record books.

When the votes are counted tonight, women are unlikely to be any closer to achieving parity with men in the House of Commons. Today's vote could even result in fewer female MPs taking their seats in the next Parliament.

The Conservatives, who have enjoyed a lead in the polls since mid-campaign, have recruited fewer women to run in the election than the other parties. But they hardly bear the sole responsibility for the enduring federal gender gap. When it comes to achieving parity within their own ranks, the Liberals have little to brag about.

During the past 12 years of Liberal rule, the proportion of women in the Commons has barely increased, going from 18 per cent when Jean ChrŽtien first became prime minister to 21 per cent under his successor.

In 1993, the number of female candidates was actually higher than in the 2004 and 2006 elections. Back then, two of the five leaders, including the prime minister, were women. That gave every party a stronger incentive to recruit more female candidates. But that collective fervour was as short-lived as Kim Campbell's reign.

There are fewer women on the election ballots and there are precious few future female contenders in sight for federal leadership positions and that is hardly a coincidence.

No party establishment is using this election to groom a female candidate for a future leadership post to the degree that some Liberal powerbrokers have promoted political rookie Michael Ignatieff as a potential successor to Paul Martin.

At this point, the woman most likely to be headed for the federal leadership fast track is ... a Conservative. Chances are there will be plenty of time to see Alberta's Rona Ambrose in action after today.

Quebec federalists are hardly underrepresented in the election itself. For every sovereignist candidate, there are usually at least four federalists contenders in the running. But that is no guarantee of parliamentary representation down the line.

From all indications, at least half of Quebecers are set to vote for federalist candidates today. But that support is almost certain to translate into a seat deficit. The size of the gap between the votes cast for federalist parties in Quebec and the seats they actually earn is the only pending issue.

In the last election, the Bloc secured more than two-thirds of the 75 Quebec seats with less than half the vote, a discrepancy that could become more acute this year if a more even split in the federalist vote allows Gilles Duceppe's candidates to slip through the mesh.

A consequence of this distortion has been a monolithic Quebec parliamentary voice that is out of sync with the province's complex reality as well as a weaker presence at the centre. But the federalist-sovereignist gap in the Commons is hardly the only discrepancy of the current system.

Even if thousands of urban voters in the big cities of Central Canada support Stephen Harper today, they are still unlikely to have much of a voice within the Conservative caucus. A consequence of that could be the absence of significant representation from Montreal and Toronto within the next federal government.

Liberals from Alberta know the problem well. In 2004, 22 per cent of them supported Paul Martin, a vote that resulted in the Liberals taking only two of the province's 28 seats. After this election Liberal voters from Alberta might find themselves at least temporarily reduced to silence in the House of Commons.

And what of the Canadian left? It is ultimately the biggest loser of the current system. With more votes than the Bloc in 2004, the NDP earned one-third of the seats of its sovereignist counterpart. In the last federal election, one in five voters supported the NDP or the Green party, a score that saw a mere 6 per cent of the seats go to New Democrats.

When the votes are counted tonight, one certainty is that the winner-take-all slant of our electoral system will exaggerate fault lines, driving a needlessly bigger wedge between Quebec federalists and sovereignists, urban and rural Canada, the left and the right, and once again leaving Canadian women outside looking in at a male-dominated federal arena.

All that should give fresh ammunition to those who keep arguing it is time to start crafting an electoral system that is more respectful of Canadian political subtleties and less stacked against the advent of more inclusive governments.

Hello,

I thought that this article from Chantal Hebert would be of particular interest to FVC and those whose primary focus is seeing more women elected. She touches on both in this article and makes it clear that the status why the status quo isn't acceptable.

David-Paul Sip

Mon pays, on thin ice
The Globe & Mail --- Clive Doucet:

“It will take a great deal more this election can deliver. We need real debates about real issues rooted in understanding the new Canada. That means governing with the Bloc Quebecois, not without, the creation of eco-cities, rebuilding a national rail infrastructure and. above all, an electoral system that recognizes we now live in 2006, not the 19th century. Democracy is more than “one person one vote.” One person’s vote has to be equal to another’s and Canadian federal democracy fails the basic text. Two out of three Canadians understand this, Why can’t the federal parties.”

Eleven key issues were selected by the Ottawa Citizen on 22 January to be followed in the election coverage tonight and one of these is 'Democratic Reform'.

This morning's National Post also listed the issue under the title Government/Electoral Reform as one of the key items to watch in this election.

Chantal Hebert's endorsement in the Toronto Star is the icing.

This is a tremendous tribute to our collective efforts over the past few years in staying on top of what has now finally been identified as important to the future we are building for the next generation.

Patricia Marsden-Dole

From: Straight Goods
Subject: E-Day Election Goods, Jan. 23

LET'S DUMP "MAJORITY RULES," by Richard Shillington. What Canada really
needs is electoral reform.

"Look at the 2004 election results. . . . The message here is, for electoral success, to concentrate your effort in ridings you could win and forget the rest. Be more regional. Balkanize the country. Be like the Bloc."

http://www.straightgoods.ca/Election2006/ViewNews.cfm?Ref=67

from the Star:

Voting system gives us what we want

Richard Gwyn suggests that our old and creaky voting system may just manage to produce the result Canadians want — a minority Conservative government with some representation in Quebec to weaken the separatist movement. I agree this is what Canadians want. What puzzles me is why Gwyn does not acknowledge a proportional representation system would much more assuredly yield this. Many of us fear our current system may flub up and transmute a 38 per cent Conservative vote into a majority in Parliament.

Jerry Ginsburg, Thornhill

from CBC Votes 2006 Election Day Analysis

Tonight is all about winners and losers. The winners will celebrate, the losers will put on a brave face, but under their breaths, some will be muttering “we wuz robbed”. That’s because in our “first past the post” electoral system, winners sometimes take home more of the spoils than they possibly deserve. The key to success is making every vote count. The party that wins the most seats tonight will be the party that is able to distribute its vote most efficiently. Look at this table from the 2004 election…

The Bloc Québécois elected one MP for every 31,113 votes.
The Liberals elected one MP for every 36,905 votes.
The Conservatives elected one MP for every 40,601 votes.
The NDP elected one MP for every 111,969 votes.
The Green party elected zero MPs for 582,247 votes.

After looking at that, it’s not surprising that smaller parties like the NDP and the Greens favour proportional representation, while “efficient” parties like the Liberals and Conservatives think the current system works just fine.

Of course, it doesn’t take much for the tables to turn. In 2004, the NDP lost twelve races by fewer than 1,000 votes; seven to the Conservatives, and five to the Liberals. Small swings in those ridings tonight, and the NDP seat total could improve considerably over last time when the party won 19 seats with 15.7% of the vote. In 1988, the NDP’s best year ever, it won 43 seats with 20.4%. That translates into a highly efficient rate of one seat for every 38,645 votes. Another result like that, and proportional representation could suddenly start looking a lot less attractive.

—IB

Our news release is the lead news item on rabble.ca

http://www.rabble.ca/everyones_a_critic.shtml?x=46088

Wayne,

Below is a letter to the editor to our local paper.

I threw this together this morning, hoping that it would make the Wednesday Oakville Beaver's letters to the editor. Rod Jarred replied to me that he needed my phone number and address to publish it. So I hope that means he's considering publishing it. I will let you know.

He also was curious about who the 12 green party MPs would be; and how that would be determined and who determines it? I replied explaining how it would work with MMP and STV.

It's great that we are now getting those kinds of questions.

Here's hoping that the letter to the editor gets in the paper, and that the editor's curiosity will be a springboard for another article in the paper. Time will tell.

Thanks for all the statistics. It made my job easier, putting together a letter with an impending deadline.

Bronwen

As a followup to the article on January 14, 2006 - Youth opting out for vote is symptomatic.

Yet again, Canada's 12th century voting system brought in a House of Commons that was not reflective of Canadian voters. If a form of proportional representation was our voting system, the national results would have looked very different. The Conservatives would have still lead with 113 seats (not 124), the Liberals would have been the official opposition with 93 seats (not 103), but the other opposition parties numbers would be as follows NDP - 59 seats (not 29), Bloc - 31 seats (not 51), and the Green Party - 12 seats (not zero).

This antiquated First Past the Post system rewarded separatists, but punished Western Liberals, Urban Conservatives, New Democrats and Greens.

As expected, in both the Oakville riding and Halton riding, it was a very close race between the Liberal Party candidates and the Conservative Party candidates. Unfortunately some residents of Oakville felt that they were forced to vote strategically, and not with their heart. In a proportional representation voting system, there would be no necessity for strategic voting practices because all votes would count.

At my daughter's high school, the Green Party won, with the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP's in opposition. It tells you a little bit about what our young voters are thinking. However, their results were based on popularity votes. Unfortunately, they will enter the real world of voting and find that their vote will not count, just like millions of other Canadian voters.

We need to encourage our local MP's to support a citizen's assembly to look into proportional representation voting systems for our Canada. If brought in, it would make more of us feel that we live in a democracy.

Bronwen Bruch
Chair
Fair Vote Canada - Halton Chapter

FEDERAL ELECTION IN CANADA

2006-01-25T00:54:00.000-05:00

Hi Wayne,

Sure you’re very busy right now what with this election lark, but thought you might be interested in what the UK Electoral Reform Society had to say about it, available here:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/publications/briefings/Canada2006.htm

All the best,
Paul Davies

FEDERAL ELECTION IN CANADA

January 2006

The Canadian general election of 23 January 2006 failed to produce an overall majority in Parliament. The Conservatives under Stephen Harper replaced Paul Martin's Liberals as the largest single party but they will need the support of other parties in order to get legislation through parliament.

Votes (%) Seats Seats (%)
Conservative 36.3 124 40.3
Liberal 30.2 103 33.4
New Democrat 17.5 29 9.4
Bloc Québécois 10.5 51 16.6
Independent/ Other 5.5 1 0.3

Source: Elections Canada provisional results.

Turnout at this election was 64.9 per cent, up from 60.9 per cent in the previous election.

Minority government is not unusual in Canada. Despite the claims of FPTP supporters that the system produces stable government, of the 16 elections that have taken place in Canada since 1957, 8 have produced majority government (though on only 2 occasions did the party command a majority of votes) and 8 have produced parliaments with no overall majority.

The average life span of a minority government is about 18 months, and the Conservative Party's position in parliament in 2006 is weaker than any of these predecessor governments - it commands a smaller proportion of seats and has no natural allies among the minority parties. The election result, like that in 2004, may lead to a period of instability and the political parties jockeying for electoral advantage in the hope of winning a majority. The chances are that a reluctant Canadian electorate will have to go back to the polls before the end of 2007, for the third time since 2004.

British media and political discussion of the German election in September 2005 saw a great deal of unfair criticism of proportional representation in Germany - although the result reflected the wishes of the electorate and a broad based government has now been formed. Can we look forward to discussion of the chronic instability of FPTP in Canada after two indecisive elections in a row?

The national result was not particularly disproportional between the two largest parties, but the Bloc Québécois won a disproportionately large share of seats because its vote was confined to only one province, where its 42.1 per cent vote share won it 68 per cent of seats. In contrast, the New Democratic Party, which polled over a million more votes than the Bloc, won only 29 seats because its vote was more evenly distributed.

The Bloc's disproportionate success in Quebec was not the only result that distorted how votes were cast in the Canadian provinces. In Alberta the Conservatives won all 28 seats, leaving the 35 per cent who voted for other parties unrepresented; in the smaller province of Prince Edward Island the Liberals monopolised representation on 53 per cent of the vote. Tensions between the different regions are a significant problem in Canadian politics, which the distortions of First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) exacerbate. Representation of the Conservatives is skewed to the western provinces, and of Liberals to the Atlantic coast.

Wanna trade?

2006-01-25T00:48:00.000-05:00

Hi Wayne,

Nice article today on the election results -- nice to know (even if it is wistfully) that we Greens could've achieved Party Status in Parliament under a proportional representation system. :-)

Would you be interested in trading links with our blog? We've got a nice little "Green Party rally" speech which speaks to the calm, hopeful idealism of activists supporting their cause, in spite of insurmountable odds...

http://scottjanzen.blogspot.com/2006/01/election-day-why-we-vote-green.html

Cheers,

Matthew Klippenstein

Hello,

I'm writing to let you know I have put up a link to your website and Wayne Smith's weblog, I would appreciate if you could reciprocate:

http://www.akeelshah.blogspot.com

Akeel Shah

ELECTION 2006: ANOTHER CASE OF ELECTORAL DYSFUNCTION

2006-01-25T00:37:00.000-05:00

VOTING SYSTEM REWARDS SEPARATISTS, PUNISHES WESTERN LIBERALS,
URBAN CONSERVATIVES, NEW DEMOCRATS, AND GREENS

Once again, Canada’s antiquated first-past-the-post system wasted millions of votes, distorted results, severely punished large blocks of voters, exaggerated regional differences, created an unrepresentative Parliament, and may possibly have even given us the wrong government.

The chief victims of the January 23 federal election were:

- Western Liberals: In the prairie provinces, Conservatives got three times as many votes as Liberals did, but won nearly ten times as many seats. In Alberta, the Conservative Party won 100% of the seats with 65% of the votes. The 500,000 Albertans who voted otherwise elected no one.

- Urban Conservatives: The 400,000-plus Conservative voters in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver should have been able to elect about nine MPs, but instead elected no one. The three cities together will not have a single MP in the governing caucus, let alone the cabinet.

- New Democrats: The NDP attracted a million more votes than the Bloc, but the voting system gave the Bloc 51 seats, the NDP 29. Nearly 18% of Canadians voted NDP, but the party won less than 10% of the seats and does not hold the balance of power, unlike the Liberals and the Bloc.

- Green Party: More than 650,000 Green Party voters across the country elected no one, while 475,000 Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada elected 20 MPs.

- Federalists and nationalists: As usual, the voting system turned entire regions of Canada into partisan fiefdoms, rather than allowing the diversity of views in all regions to be fairly represented in Parliament and within each national party.

“How can anyone continue to think that this voting system gives us good geographic representation,” said Wayne Smith, President of Fair Vote Canada, “when it fragments and divides our country like this?”

“Had results been fair, it is possible that we may have even seen a different government,” said Smith. “The Liberals, NDP, and Greens represent a majority, and together they would have held a majority of seats.”

Had the same votes been cast under a proportional voting system, Fair Vote Canada projected that the seats allocation would have been approximately as follows:

Conservatives - 36.3% of the popular vote: 113 seats (not 124)
Liberals - 30.1% of the popular vote: 93 seats (not 103)
NDP - 17.5% of the popular vote: 59 seats (not 29)
Bloc - 10.5% of the popular vote: 31 seats (not 51)
Greens - 4.5% of the popular vote: 12 seats (not 0)

However, Smith emphasized that speculation should be tempered.

“With a different voting system, people would have voted differently,” he said. “There would have been no need for strategic voting. We would likely have seen higher voter turnout. We would have had different candidates - more women, and more diversity of all kinds. We would have had more real choices.”

“The voting system really matters – a lot – and the system we have is simply not acceptable in a modern democracy.”

Ridings to Watch on Election Night

2006-01-24T23:45:00.000-05:00

Equal Voice 2006 Election Analysis

Newfoundland
Total Ridings: 7
Female Candidates: 8 in major parties plus Greens
Wins: 0
Close: 0
Long Shot: 0

Long Shot:
Siobhan Coady (Liberal) in St. John’s South Mount Pearl may have a chance against Conservative Loyola Hearn. New Democrat Peg Norman is running a strong campaign as well.

New Brunswick:
Total Ridings: 10
Female Candidates: 6
Wins: 0
Close: 0
Long Shot: 0

We predict that no women will win seats in New Brunswick

Nova Scotia:
Ridings: 11
Female Candidates: 7 (NDP and Green only)
Wins: 1
Close: 0
Long Shot: 0

Only One Predicted Win for a Woman:

Halifax: Alexa McDonough (NDP) - likely to win, but it may be close

PEI
Ridings: 4
Total Female Candidates: 3 (NDP and Green only)

We predict that no women will win seats in Prince Edward Island. All ridings are safe Liberal seats, and no Liberal women are running.

Quebec:
Ridings: 75
Female Candidates: 96
Wins: 18
Close: 6
Long Shots: none identified yet

Predicted Wins for Women:

Châteauguay Saint-Constant: Carole Freeman (Bloc)
Compton Stanstead: France Bonsat (Bloc)
Drummond: Pauline Picard (Bloc)
La Pointe-de-l'Île: Francine Lalonde (Bloc)
Laurentides Labelle: Johanne Deschamps (Bloc)
Laval: Nicole Demers (Bloc)
Longueuil Pierre-Boucher: Caroline St. Hilaire (Bloc)
Louis-Saint-Laurent: Josee Verner (Conservative)
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine: Marlene Jennings (Liberal)
Papineau: Vivian Barbot (Bloc) is predicted to defeat Liberal cabinet Minister Pierre Pettigrew
Québec: Christiane Gagnon (Bloc)
Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques: Louise Thibault (Bloc)
Rivière-du-Nord: Monique Guay (Bloc)
Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert: Carole Lavallée (Bloc)
Terrebonne—Blainville: Diane Bourgeois (Bloc)
Trois-Rivières: Paule Brunelle (Bloc)
Vaudreuil-Soulanges: Meilie Faille (Bloc)
Westmount—Ville-Marie: Lucienne Robillard (Liberal)

Incumbent women who may lose seat:
Gatineau: Françoise Boivin (Liberal)
Jeanne-Le Ber: Liza Frulla (Liberal)

Ahuntsic: Incumbent Eleni Bakopanos (Liberal) and Maria Mourani (Bloc) are the front runners, with Mourani predicted to take the riding. Caroline Desrosiers of the NDP and Lynette Tremblay of the Greens are also running.

Women in Close Races

Christine Émond-Lapointe (BQ) is in a tight race with Conservative Lawrence Cannon and incumbent Liberal David Smith. Celine Breault of the NDP is also running a strong campaign.

Beauport Limoilou: Sylvie Boucher (Conservative) may defeat the Bloc incumbent.

Women running against women in close races:

Laval Les Îles: Raymonde Folco (Liberal) is in a tight race with BQ member Christiane Pichette, but so far is predicted to win.

Ontario:
Ridings: 106
Female Candidates: 88
Wins: 15
Close: 14
Long Shot: 2

Predicted Wins for Women:

Brampton West: Colleen Beaumier (Liberal)
Brampton Springdale: Ruby Dhalla (Liberal)
Don Valley East: Yasmin Ratsani (Liberal)
Durham: Bev Oda (Conservative)
Guelph: Brenda K. Chamberlain (Liberal)
Haldimand Norfolk: Diane Finley (Conservative)
Kitchener Centre: Karen Redman (Liberal)
London West: Sue Barnes (Liberal)
Mississauga East Cooksville: Albina Guarnieri (Liberal)
Oakville: Bonnie Brown (Liberal)
Renfrew Nipissing Pembroke: Cheryl Gallant (Conservative)
Simcoe Grey: Helena Guergis (Conservative)
Sudbury: Dianne Marleau (Liberal) - Close, but predicted to win
Thornhill: Susan Kadis (Liberal)
York West: Judy Sgro (Liberal)

Incumbent Women who may lose seat:
Aileen Carroll: Barrie
Carolyn Bennett: St. Paul’s
Diane Marleau: Sudbury
Belinda Stronach (Liberal): Newmarket Aurora
Paddy Torsney (Liberal): Burlington
Judi Longfield (Liberal): Whitby Oshawa

Women in Close Races
Hamilton Mountain: Chris Charlton (NDP) - Close - predicted to win
Kenora: Susan Barclay (NDP) Close - Predicted to win
Ottawa West-Nepean: Lee Farnworth (Liberal) - not predicted to win. New Democrat Marlene Rivier also seeking seat but it will likely go to conservative John Baird.
London Fanshawe: Irene Mathyssen (NDP) - predicted to win
Peterborough: Diane Lloyd (Liberal) - predicted to win
Trinity Spadina : Olivia Chow (NDP) -predicted to win

Women running against Women in close races:
Beaches East York: Maria Minna (Liberal) and Marilyn Churley (NDP)
Parkdale High Park: Sarmite Bulte (Liberal) and Peggy Nash (NDP)
Newmarket Aurora: Belinda Stronach (Liberal) and Lois Brown (Conservative)

Long Shots:
Louise V. Parkes (Liberal): Oshawa
Patricia Davidson (Conservative): Sarnia Lambton

Manitoba:
Ridings: 14
Female Candidates: 10
Win: 3
Close: 1
Long Shot: 0

Predicted Wins for Women:
Winnipeg North: Judy Wasylycia-Leis (NDP)
Winnipeg South Centre: Anita Neville (Liberal) (note: could be very close)
Kildonan St. Paul: Joy Smith (Conservative)

Incumbent women who may lose seat:
Bev Desjarlais (Independent): Churchill
possibly Anita Neville: Winnipeg South Centre

Women running against Women in close races:
Niki Ashton (NDP), Tina Keeper (Liberal), Bev Desjarlais (Independent) - Current prediction leans toward NDP

Saskatchewan:
Ridings: 12
Female Candidates: 11
Win: 2
Close: 1
Long Shot: 1

Predicted Wins for Women:
Blackstrap: Lynne Yelich (Conservative)
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar: Carol Skelton (Conservative) (May be a close race with New Democrat Nettie Wiebe)

Women in Close Races
Palliser: Joanne Dusel (NDP) in a close race with the Conservative incumbent Dave Batters.

Long Shot:
Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River: Anita Jackson (NDP)

Alberta
Ridings: 28
Female Candidates: 27
Wins: 2
Close: 1
Long Shot: 1

Predicted Wins for Women:

Edmonton Spruce Grove: Rona Ambrose (Conservative)
Calgary Nose Hill: Diane Ablonczy (Conservative)

Incumbent women who may lose their seat:
Edmonton Centre: Anne McClellan (LIB) - in a close race with Conservative Candidate

Long Shot:
Edmonton Strathcona: Linda Duncan (NDP)

British Columbia
Ridings: 36
Female Candidates: 33
Wins: 6
Close: 7
Long shot: 1

Predicted Wins for Women:
Kamloops Thompson Cariboo: Betty Hinton (Conservative)
Fleetwood-Port Kells: Nina Grewal (Conservative)
Nanaimo Cowichan: Jean Crowder (NDP)
Surrey North: Penny Priddy (NDP)
Vancouver Centre: Hedy Fry (Liberal)
Vancouver East: Libby Davies (NDP)

Women in close races:
Burnaby New Westminster: Mary Pynenburg (Liberal) in a close three-way race with incumbent Peter Julian (NDP) and Conservative Mark Dalton
Newton North Delta: Nancy Clegg (NDP)
Victoria: Denise Savoie (NDP)(close, but predicted to win)
Vancouver Island North: Catherine Bell (NDP)

Women running against women in close races:
New Westminster Coquitlam: Joyce Murray (Liberal) and Dawn Black (NDP) running against Paul Forseth (Conservative). Predictions vary between NDP and Conservative
North Vancouver: Sherry Shaghagi (NDP) and Cindy Silver (Conservative) running against Liberal Don Bell
Saanich Gulf Islands: Sheila Orr (Liberal) and Jennifer Burgis (NDP) running against Conservative Gary Lunn

Long Shot:
West Vancouver Sunshine Coast Sea to Sky Country: Judith Wilson (NDP)

North:
Ridings: 3
Female Candidates: 3
Win: 1
Close: 1
Long Shot: 1

Predicted Win for Women:
Nunavut: Nancy Karatek-Lindell (Liberal)

Incumbent women who may lose seat:
Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Liberal) is predicted to lose her seat to New Democrat Dennis Bevington

Long Shot:
Yukon: Pam Boyde (NDP)

National Totals:
Wins: 48
Close: 31

If all the close races were won by female candidates, we’ll end up with just over 25% of seats - a slight improvement, but still far from equality!

Stats from Equal Voice

National Totals:

63 Women elected (20.45%)

Conservative: 14 out of 124 seats
Liberal : 21 out of 103 seats
Bloc: 16 out of 51 seats
NDP: 12 out of 29 seats

Women elected in 2006 have dropped to 63 or 20.45% which means our listing world-wide is likely to drop from 42nd place to 45th.

June

While it is sad that the number of women elected to Parliament is going in the wrong direction, slightly, I think looking at the percentages by party is also revealing:

Conservative: 14 out of 124 seats = 11.3 %
Liberal : 21 out of 103 seats = 20.4 %
Bloc: 16 out of 51 seats = 31.4 %
NDP: 12 out of 29 seats = 41.4 %

It is clear that it is the Conservative Party, and to a lesser extent the Liberals, that are not woman friendly, while the Bloc and especially the NDP are up there with levels approaching the Scandinavian countries.

Ciao, Bruce.

Well, exactly. The most obvious fact about the election was that the number of Conservative seats increased substantially. Therefore it is even possible for *ALL* of the proportions listed above to *increase* while the overall number *decreases*.

Does anyone have the figures from last time to say whether that did in fact happen?

Julian

Last time:

Conservative: 12 out of 99 = 12.1%
Liberal: 34 out of 135 = 25.2%
Bloc: 14 out of 54 = 25.9%
NDP: 5 out of 19 = 26.3%

So mostly it was the Liberals who let the show down. Does this mean a lot of incumbent Liberal women were defeated? Or did some of them not run again?

Julian

We would need to compare the % elected vs % nominated in 2004 and 2006. Does anyone have these numbers?

Stephen

2006 Nominations

Conservative: 38/308 = 12.3%
Liberal: 79/308 = 25.6%
Bloc: 23/75 = 30.6%
NDP: 108/308 = 35%
Green: 72/308 = 23%

Stephen

And the relevance of all this to PR is???

Best regards

Alastair

Better representation of women is one of the broad criteria that Fair Vote
Canada uses to assess electoral systems.

Cheers,

Derek

The relevance is that our current voting system throws up barriers to the election of women and minorities, while PR promotes diversity. Aside from Cuba, every country with at least 30% women in their legislature uses proportional voting.

That's why removing barriers to the election of women and minorities is contained in our Statement of Purpose.

Wayne

Women elected in 2006

2006-01-24T20:33:00.000-05:00

Women elected in 2006 have dropped to 63 or 20.45% which means our listing world wide is likely to drop from 42nd place to 45th.

June

Stats from Equal Voice

National Totals:

63 Women elected (20.45%)

Conservative: 14 out of 124 seats

Liberal : 21 out of 103 seats

Bloc: 16 out of 51 seats

NDP: 12 out of 29 seats

June,

While it is sad that the number of women elected to Parliament is going in the wrong direction, slightly, I think looking at the percentages by party is also revealing:

Conservative: 14 out of 124 seats = 11.3 %

Liberal : 21 out of 103 seats = 20.4 %

Bloc: 16 out of 51 seats = 31.4 %

NDP: 12 out of 29 seats = 41.4 %

It is clear that it is the Conservative Party, and to a lesser extent the Liberals, that are not woman friendly while the Bloc and especially the NDP are up there with levels approaching the Scandinavian countries.

Ciao, Bruce.

And the relevance of all this to PR is???

Best regards
Alastair

The relevance is that our current voting system throws up barriers to the election of women and minorities, while PR promotes diversity. Aside from Cuba, every country with at least 30% women in their legislature uses proportional voting.

That's why removing barriers to the election of women and minorities is contained in our Statement of Purpose.

Wayne Smith, President
Fair Vote Canada
416-407-7009
Wayne.Smith@FairVoteCanada.org

Thanks Wayne

The prompting posting was intended just as a point of interest. It is amusing to sit back and watch a bunch of guys chatter away about women's representation.

;-)
June

Anne McLellan supports PR

2006-01-22T21:30:00.000-05:00

from The Edmonton Sun:

The issue of proportional representation has come up at candidates forums and McLellan has surprised people by supporting it and fixed election dates.

She says she gets a different slant on it being from Alberta where the Liberals draw 25% of the vote and are lucky to elect one Liberal.

"I think there's momentum building behind electoral reform," she told a meeting of southeast Edmonton business people this week. "I think it will lead us to some form of proportional representation."

McLellan said it would be good for national unity to have more Liberals elected in the west and more Liberals and Conservatives in Quebec.

"This country is fragile in many respects," she said. "I think we need truly national parties to hold it together and understand every region."

Information Report Commitment Bouquets

2006-01-22T21:20:00.000-05:00

Fair Vote Canada Election Team 2006;

Thanks for all the amazing work you've been doing! The candidates must be thinking, migawd, they're everywhere!

Fair voting reform is a topic at every all-candidates' meeting and in the news every day, thanks to your persistence and determination in making this an election issue. We are setting up a post-election scenario where we can make solid progress towards a fair voting system for Canada!

I have been posting some of your campaign reports, as well as relevant media stories, general interest election news, and of course, my rants, on Election Canada 2006 - The President's Blog at http://fairvotecanada.blogspot.com/.

I hope you will have a look, tell your friends, subscribe to the blog, and spread the word about fair voting reform.

Just a few more days. Let's make them count!

Wayne Smith, President
Fair Vote Canada
Wayne.Smith@FairVoteCanada.org

P.S. I've also thrown in Michael Moore's analysis of the Canadian election. As a professional journalist, Mr. Moore is, of course, always thoroughly objective.

Information out in Thunder Bay

Larry, Wayne, I'm happy to tell you that I gave out all the flyers and pamphlets you sent me. Each candidate (except the Conservative one) let us put your info on their campaign tables at the candidate's debate held last week. I handed out the Electoral Dysfunction pamphlets to people coming into the debates and everyone took one.

Thanks again for sending the stuff our way.

Cindy Long,
Thunder Bay, ON

Cindy - we really appreciate the effort. As noted earlier, we do not yet have many members in Northern Ontario and with the upcoming provincial reform opportunity, our movement needs a strong presence in all parts of Ontario.

Let's keep in touch,
Larry

A bit late, but here's my report from the Beaches-East York all-candidates meeting.

The crowd was much larger than anyone expected with almost 1000 people showing up. I handed out fliers during the half hour preceding the meeting. Most people were very receptive. I was unable to ask a question even though I had a seat in the 2nd row. No matter, three of the candidates brought up the issue on their own, either in their opening remarks or in answers to other questions. Jim Harris, the leader of the Green Party, mentioned proportional representation several times forcefully throughout the night to a considerable amount of applause. Marilyn Churley (NDP) and Maria Minna (L) also indicated their support for PR without also prompting the audience to show their approval. Maria Minna volunteered that she personally was in favour of a mixed system and partial PR.

Only Peter Conroy (C) was silent on the issue. I know Peter personally, so I had emailed him prior, wishing him good luck and telling him that I was planning to raise PR as an issue at the meeting. His email to me was "thanks". One of the candidates (I think it was Peter) mentioned electoral reform in the context of instituting an elected senate - certainly important, but clearly a diversion from the real issue of PR (my opinion).

After the meeting, I was talking to Peter and was asking him how he stood when he noticed the TV reporter trying to get his attention, so I still don't know where he stands (but I can guess). Talking to Maria afterwards, she regretted that electoral reform had not moved quicker, pointing out that there was a committee due to report in the spring if the election hadn't been called. Also, after the meeting I was approached by several in the audience to let me know that they support PR.

It was heartening to see the keen interest in this election and also in PR.

On Saturday, I distributed the rest of my fliers at the St. Lawrence Market. About 75% acceptance of the fliers with maybe 30% volunteering that they think it's important too.

Paul de Man
Toronto

Commitment from Stephen Owen

Hi Larry,

Just wanted to let you know that Stephen Owen (Vancouver-Quadra) told me he is committed to a process of electoral reform and fully supports citizen-based deliberative bodies (so he's supporting the STV proposal here in BC). He does seem somewhat inclined to wait and see what happens provincially before moving ahead federally, but he was heavily involved in the Law Commission's report in 2004, so could probably be counted on to support a push this time, especially since his party will likely be the opposition and have far fewer seats than they deserve (if they end up not being the opposition, or just barely beat the Bloc, there would be an even stronger case to be made). He also speculated that there might be a constitutional objection to changing the system (ie, need for an amendment), but didn't think that would be a terrifically hard hurdle.

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion about that issue.

Cheers,

Antony Hodgson

Hi Antony,

That is very helpful info. Steven Owen had just left the Law Commission before they began their electoral reform project, but glad to hear he is moving in our direction. Is he likely to get back in?

There are no inherent Constitutional impediments to a new voting system. You just need to ensure the system doesn't violate any constitutional provision - particularly the number or portion of seats per province (the Senate floor, rep by pop, the grandfather clause for provinces with shrinking populations). None of those factors would prevent design of a good PR system.

Larry

Bouquets to Wayne and Larry

You must be pleased today - as PR got lots of time on the CBC/TV panel last night - and again on CBC radio this AM - and expect with yesterday's results it will continue to be well noticed. Now to get some action - eh? as we supposedly say.

And might I suggest you two follow up on the reaction I got at Yorkville Branch and Toronto main Reference Library when I took over flyers for posting. The matter was "political" - and the flyers were not posted. We need to get TPL to see it as an a-political matter, having to do with electoral reform, as it does rather than party politics.

Jean Fewster

Thanks Jean - I think we're making progress, but we still have a long way to go. We're swamped with things right now, so we're unlikely to be dealing with the library bureaucracy in the near future, but it's something to keep in mind. Thanks for the help with the campaign - much appreciated!

Larry

How not to vote

2006-01-22T19:21:00.000-05:00

Fair Vote Canada doesn't endorse political parties or candidates. And I would never tell you not to vote, or to spoil your ballot, or eat it.

So I'm not actually going to tell you how to vote. You'll have to decide that for yourself.

This election has been framed as an election about values. What kind of Canada do we want?

Personally, I want to see a Canada where the values of the government are the values of the people. A Canada where every voice is heard and every idea is given a fair hearing. A Canada renowned around the world for the fairness and effectiveness of its democratic institutions.

Sadly, although we are blessed compared to many places in the world, we are far behind most industrial democracies in this regard. All the best-run countries in the world, countries like Switzerland and Germany and Sweden and Norway and Denmark and Holland and Belgium and so on and so on, over 80 countries in all, changed to proportional voting systems decades ago. Canada has fallen behind.

The time has come for change.

Like the frog in the pot of water coming slowly to a boil, we didn't notice for a while how we were failing to keep up with the evolution of democratic institutions. In 1993, the wheels fell off. We went from a two-and-a-half party system to a full-blown multi-party system, and suddenly nothing made sense any more. The Reform Party and the Progressive Conservatives each got over two million votes, but the Reform Party got 52 seats and the PCs were reduced to two. The NDP, with almost 7% of the votes, dropped to nine seats (3%) and ceased to be an official party. The fourth place party, the Bloc Québécois, got 54 seats and became Her Majesty's Not-So-Loyal Opposition.

A decade later, we are reeling from a string of record-phony-majority governments and chaotic minorities. We can no longer pretend that everything is OK. Voting system reform has gone from a discussion topic for policy wonks to an urgent priority for more and more Canadians, including almost all political scientists and growing numbers of media commentators. The question is no longer whether we need a new voting system, but how and when we will get it.

Which brings me to strategic voting.

I don't recommend or endorse strategic voting. My views have been laid out in my previous post on The Perils of Strategic Voting, way back on December 12.

The fact that strategic voting has (again) been a major topic of discussion throughout this interminable election campaign is in itself an indictment of the state of our system. More than one party has been urging you to hold your nose and vote for them.

When we get a fair voting system for Canada, we will never have to think about strategic voting again. Every Canadian will be able to vote for the party and/or candidate of their choice, and know that their vote will make a difference to the outcome of the election.

In the meantime, if you're planning to vote strategically, at least get it right!

The key to strategic voting is to understand that it's all about what's happening in your local riding. You don't get to vote for what party will form the government, and you don't get to vote for who will be the Prime Minister. All you get to vote for under our current system is who will be your local Member of Parliament.

The next important thing to understand is that you don't even have the opportunity to vote strategically unless you have a close race in your riding. Four out of five of us already know who will win in our riding. Vote with your heart.

If you live in a swing riding, your favourite party may be one of those who have a chance to win. Lucky you! Vote with your heart.

That still leaves a few ridings where there may be a chance to make a difference with a strategic vote. DemocraticSpace.com has a Strategic Voting Guide that may be helpful, if you accept their analysis of the polls. Note that they don't actually endorse strategic voting either.

Remember that, under the new campaign financing rules, the party you vote for will receive $1.75 per year until the next election.

Whatever the outcome, the campaign for a fair voting system will be neither won nor lost tomorrow. It will just enter a new phase. Indeed, the struggle for democracy never ends.

However you vote, think about how your vote will affect the chances for change leading to a fair voting system for Canada.

And may God have mercy on us all.

Wayne

SPECIAL ISSUE: PRE-ELECTION NEWSLETTER – January 22, 2006

2006-01-22T19:01:00.000-05:00

DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN

Before a single vote is tallied, we can comfortably predict that the voting system will create another train wreck for Canadian democracy on January 23.

Some parties will gain too many seats, others too few, and some none at all. If recent trends hold, more than six million of us will cast wasted votes. Partisan fiefdoms will continue in most regions, where one party dominates, all but wiping out representation for supporters of other parties.

WE’RE ON A ROLL

For the past eight weeks, Fair Vote Canada members and supporters have been engaged in an unprecedented grassroots campaign to put the issue of fair voting and proportional representation in front of politicians, the media, and their local community. We have been absolutely delighted with the energy, enthusiasm, and results!

If you wish to get a flavour of the grassroots campaign, check out FVC President Wayne Smith’s Election Blog at http://fairvotecanada.blogspot.com/. Other national FVC campaign activities are covered in recent news postings at www.fairvote.ca. Incidentally, yesterday saw the highest number of visits ever to the FVC website. The momentum continues to grow!

TAKE ACTION!

The pre-election phase is over, but the coming days are just as critical in the fight for fair voting.

On Monday night, a Fair Vote Canada team will be analyzing election results. Very early Tuesday morning, we will issue a news release on this latest electoral travesty. Our national team will mount a very active nationwide media relations effort, but it is very important that the voices of citizens are heard right across the country.

· On Tuesday, please visit www.fairvote.ca., where we will post our news release with supporting data and examples of how the voting system distorted results.

· Using this information, please write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper and/or call a radio or TV phone-in show. In your own words, express your concern and outrage that Canadians are still being subjected to distorted elections because of our first-past-the-post voting system. Call on the new government to act immediately on electoral reform. Call for a national citizen-driven process of education and consultation leading to a referendum on a new proportional voting system. Emphasize that this must be the last unfair election and the last unrepresentative Parliament that we must endure.

Do these letters and calls make a difference?

You’d better believe it! Fair Vote Canada grassroots volunteers have remarkable stories from their individual initiatives in this election campaign – e.g., candidates from mainstream parties holding up FVC leaflets in their closing speeches and proclaiming support for PR, despite their party’s position; a cabinet minister who was pummeled so often about PR at candidate meetings, he went from being anti-PR to actually signing our petition!

Every individual action helps shape the political environment and takes us a step closer to an historic breakthrough on electoral reform.

Within the next ten days, you will also receive a post-election newsletter with an assessment and commentary on the election results. In the meantime, visit www.fairvote.ca. and the President’s Blog for news and developments.

Thanks again for your support and help!

Wayne Smith, President
Larry Gordon, Executive Director

Fair Vote Canada
26 Maryland Blvd.
Toronto, ON M4C 5C9
info@fairvotecanada.org
Ph: 416-410-4034
Fax: 416-686-4929

This message was sent today to all Fair Vote Canada members, and to our network of supporters across Canada.

If you're not a member of Fair Vote Canada, why not?

Democracy remains a do-it-yourself project.

You can join the campaign for a fair voting system for Canada right now online at www.FairVote.Ca. An introductory membership is just ten bucks.

Make your voice heard!

Wayne

More news about the campaign for fair voting reform!

2006-01-22T18:24:00.000-05:00

Just thought I would pass along that I got some provincial coverage on CBC Alberta's Wildrose Forum this afternoon. The call in topic was issues that you felt hadn't received enough attention during this election. I was able to give some fairly good examples around the democratic deficit created by FPTP and the value PR can have in addressing the regional polarities and impressions that Alberta is all Conservative and Quebec is all Bloc. I was able to include some ideas around how PR might address things like low voter turnout and the strategic voting issues that have plagued the campaigns recently.

Unfortunately, the political scientist guest host gave the typical "It's the marginal parties position," response, and before I could address the benefit to the major parties and introduce the audience to Fair Vote Canada, I was moved on. Part of the struggle, I guess. I was happy to at least have gotten a few good licks of airplay out of it anyway. With any luck at all Monday will give us the minority government that can help us really work this over the next few years.

Happy election watching!

Cheers,

Scott MacDougall
St. Paul, Alberta

I thought I should report on what I was able to do for PR in the election since the Wayne mentioned "reports" in his email.

Doug Bailie was a big help and gave me a box full of information. I spoke about PR in all of my classes at U of A and handed out the different kinds of material to the students. In one class, the professor actually made the point of working PR into the overall topic of the day which was great! I also left some pamphlets at the GSA office. Being in poli sci, everyone I talked to favoured PR, and I hope that some will join Fair Vote Canada.

If I could suggest one thing is to make small posters so that I could post some info around campus. A poster that has a little box for pamphlets would also be good because I could post it on my door in the dept. I made a make-shift one for now.

That's it. I wish I could have done more for Fair Vote Canada in this election!

John Douglas Crookshanks
Edmonton

Wayne,

Here is an article that made our local paper.

We had a meeting today and somebody new attended based on seeing in the paper that Fair Vote Canada hosted an All Candidates Meeting, and then also seeing a listing in the community update about our meeting today. We always are very happy to see a new face.

Everybody has been very happy with how the Fair Vote Campaign during the election has been going. In Halton, all 2000 Ferguson flyers have been delivered to residential households and/or senior residences; brochures and tabloids were given out to all attendees at 6 All Candidates meetings ; we sponsored an All Candidates Meeting in the Halton Riding (which made CH News) ; and we were interviewed by the Oakville Beaver (below). And that was with only 8 of our members participating in the campaign. I would like to thank you and Larry for leading a fantastic campaign. We believe that we have made inroads and hope the rest of the chapters feel the same.

Bronwen Bruch
Chair
Fair Vote Canada - Halton Chapter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Youth opting out of vote is symptomatic

Howard Mozel
Jan 14, 2006
Oakville Beaver

Simply exhorting disenfranchised young people to vote as part of the current flawed electoral system is pointless, says Ernie Kuechmeister - the system itself desperately needs to be changed.

After all, says the Fair Vote Canada Halton Chapter member, youth opting out is not the problem, but is instead symptomatic of a widespread dissatisfaction with the present way of electing Canada's leaders. Rather than chastise young people for not caring, said Kuechmeister, we need to determine exactly why they don't care, why they don't feel voting is important.

A deficient election system is only one factor contributing to their malaise of course, but in his role with Fair Vote Kuechmeister maintains he has a real axe to grind with any process in which people feel as though they don't play an important part.

"A voice unheard is a defect in the body politic," he said.

Case in point: Canada, the UK and the US are the last democracies clinging to the current "first-past-the-post" system that allows, as it did in Canada in 1997, a party with 39 per cent of the vote to form a majority government.

The purpose of Fair Vote Canada is to gain broad, multi-partisan support for an independent, citizen-driven process to allow Canadians to choose a fair voting system based on the principles that all voters are equal and that every vote counts.

To accomplish this, the current voting system must be designed to achieve several objectives, not the least of which is proportional representation, a system through which every citizen wins the right to representation and the majority wins the right to make decisions.

In the last federal election, for example, more than a half-million Green Party voters across the country elected no one. Meanwhile, fewer than a half-million Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada alone elected 22 MPs. Saskatchewan voters elected 13 Conservative MPs and Quebec elected none, even though almost twice as many voted Conservative in Quebec. In the prairie provinces, Liberals cast half as many votes as Conservatives but elected only one-seventh as many MPs.

The bottom line? Canadians are usually ruled by majority governments that the majority voted against and that, says Kuechmeister, has to end.

When young people are no longer interested in the way they're governed, he continued, they rebel. This manifests itself in Parisian youths burning cars and gang culture to simply dropping out of the electoral process.

"Young people have a way of showing their disappointment," he said.

An election - which Kuechmeister calls a "catharsis" - is a meaningful way the population airs its concerns and chooses those people it feels can best address those needs. When a large chunk of voters doesn't participate, leaders don't know what's important to the electorate. When only one minority or another wins under the current system, Kuechmeister continued, disillusionment simply deepens - especially when leaders say they speak for a country that didn't want them in power in the first place.

"We need to structure a selection process so there is more choice and when people make a choice, it matters," said Kuechmeister.

In Quebec, for example, there are plenty of voices other than those of the Bloc and the Liberals, but as far as the current system is concerned, they basically don't exist. Even the Green Party was excluded from the national leadership debates.

Although Fair Vote Canada is pushing hard for some version of proportional representation, Kuechmeister is the first admit this system may not be perfect. It would, however, finally set in motion a fairer process in which more voices can be heard and could evolve as time goes by. The organization simply wants to start change, then the country, together, can decide on what kind of change it will be.

The basic element in all forms of proportional representation is that a political party will win the percentage of seats in Ottawa that corresponds with the percentage of votes it received nationwide.

So, if the NDP gets 20 per cent of the votes, they will have 20 per cent of the seats.

"Proportional representation can be a vehicle for effecting change," said Kuechmeister, characterizing this system as a valuable tool, not the end in itself.

After all, he continued, a craftsman's value is not measured by the tools he uses, but by his creations.

Kuechmeister furthered this analogy by recalling the time he toured an English cathedral and saw the personal mark of a stonemason scratched into the foundation.

Similar marks on subsequent portions of the edifice revealed the contributions of successive generations of artisans, most of whom never lived to see the crowning bell tower.

Each, however, believed strongly in what they were building - exactly like the proponents of proportional representation.

Today, instead of compromise, consensus-building and admitting that other parties do have valid ideas, Kuechmeister believes we endure a system of politics as warfare in which the winner takes all.

This is foolish, he says, in a country like Canada that is so diverse (geographically, linguistically, historically) and one in which people should hash out the issues in a spirited, but dignified, way. Instead, we have leaders who slavishly adhere to party lines while trying to be everything to everyone.

"This is an adversarial view of problem-solving. We have to co-operate, have dialogue instead of debate," he said. "We should not reduce everything to competition."

Instead, Canada should opt for a new way of thinking, both in how we elect our leaders and how they conduct themselves when campaigning and governing.

Maybe then, says Kuechmeister, young voters will at last glimpse the bell tower.

CANADIAN PEOPLE’S PARLIAMENT OPENS ON PARLIAMENT HILL

(Ottawa) The Canadian People’s Parliament opened today on the snowbound lawn of Parliament Hill. It advocates Democratic Reform via a referendum on Proportional Representation (PR), and seeks a fair election for the 40th Canadian Parliament. Critics of the current electoral system complain that the lack of real voter choice leads to government by large party machines that have little inclination to respond to voters - and even less desire to change the system that put them in power. The People’s Parliament aims to change this – by presenting an example of how PR would make representation fairer.

A group of 130- People’s MPs were elected in an online voting process (unlike the "real Parliament" candidate "People’s MPs" can run at any time in the Canadian Open Politics forum http://openpolitics.ca/Peoples+Parliament). Citizens gathered on the Hill to attend the first plenary in-person session of the People’s Parliament (PP) were also able to elect MPs by forming groups on the spot and electing representatives to speak for them.

Fair Vote Canada is not the only organization working for fair voting reform. Best of luck to this project!

Every Vote Counts! - or not

To the editors of the Oakville Beaver;

"Every vote Counts!" says your Guest Columnist, Mayor Ann Mulvale (Beaver, January 21, 2006). If only it were true! Sadly, the reality is that, under our current first-past-the-post system, most of us vote for people who don't get elected, and so we end up with a government that most of us didn't vote for.

If we had a modern, proportional voting system, most of us would be represented in Parliament by people who we actually voted for. Government policy would likely be better in tune with the public will, and perhaps our cities could get adequate funding.

Fortunately, voting system reform is a topic of discussion at every all-candidates' meeting this election. We are on our way to a fair voting system for Canada!

Wayne Smith, President
Fair Vote Canada

from The Richmond Review

On electoral reform:

[Richmond NDP candidate Neil] Smith said the NDP would deliver an ethics package that includes electoral reform.

“It’s long overdue. we have so many anomalies in our system. The Bloc Quebecois is probably going to get fewer votes than the NDP again this time, but will have maybe 10 maybe 20 seats more than us.”

[Richmond Conservative candidate Darrel] Reid said government needs to look at a “more direct way” of electing MPs.

“Things like proportional representation, I think that’s an excellent idea.” Reform also needs to happen within Parliament, said Reid, adding Canada needs to get on with the process of electing senators and instituting fixed election dates.

[Richmond Green candidate Richard] Mathias said youth are disenfranchised because of the current electoral system.

“The chances that your vote is going to count for something in this election are distressingly low,” he said. “We need to reform our electoral system so that all of the voices count. Then I think we will find youth will become engaged.”

Estimating the seats

2006-01-22T17:03:00.000-05:00

Dear Mr. Smith:

As you may know, I am a political scientist in San Diego who specializes in electoral systems and electoral reform. I am currently working on a paper about electoral reform in Canada, including the provinces. I am, of course, following this election closely, and I have enjoyed your blog.

I have posted at my blog a estimate of the seats based on several recent polling and other scenarios. I would be interested to know your opinion of my estimates, if you have a chance.

http://fruitsandvotes.com/?p=499

Best,

Matthew Shugart
Graduate School of International Relations & Pacific Studies
University of California, San Diego

Professor Shugart;

Thanks for the kind words about my blog!

Yes, I am familiar with your name, which pops up with great frequency in the literature on voting system reform. I am certainly not competent to comment on the technical aspects of your essay, but I will forward this link to some who are.

The scenarios you outline are interesting, and in line with others I have seen. It is encouraging to see that a phony majority government is now only an outside possibility. As advocates of voting system change, we are often torn about what to wish for. The worst horror stories make the best ammunition!

The possibility of a "reversed plurality" has crossed my mind. It would certainly infuriate a lot of people, either way, and would be great fodder for our press releases. However, if the Liberals and Conservatives are that close, the NDP would probably not hold the balance of power, simply because the Libs and Cons would both be so far from a majority. I cannot bring myself to wish for a totally hung Parliament.

It will be fascinating as usual to see how it all plays out. The challenge for Fair Vote Canada is to make sense of all the data in a timely way to dig out the real story on Tuesday, the story of how our voting system has once again robbed Canadians of a democratic voice and a representative Parliament.

The good news is that discussion of fair voting reform is now everywhere, in the media, in the cafés, and at every all-candidates' debate. Psephology is sexy!

Wayne Smith, President
Fair Vote Canada

Where do the parties stand?

2006-01-21T04:56:00.000-05:00

What do the platforms of the political parties say on electoral reform?

Liberal Party of Canada

Democratic reform and renewal - A Liberal government will continue to explore the underpinnings of democratic renewal, following an initial series of successful Parliamentary reforms that began in February, 2004 with the Democratic Reform Action Plan. The Martin government subsequently established a series of Regional Roundtables with key stakeholders, academics and other groups to probe underlying issues and questions that call for democratic reforms. Parallel to this, the government commissioned academic research in select fields. In the coming year, a Liberal government will engage in dialogue with Canadians to define the values and principles they wish to see reflected in their democratic institutions. (p. 77)

So, Salvation Through Focus Groups will get us a fair voting system exactly when?

New Democratic Party of Canada

Introduce an Every Vote Counts Act to change Canada's federal electoral system to a mixed electoral system that combines constituency-based MPs with proportional representation. Ninety percent of the world's democracies - including Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, Ireland and Germany - have abandoned or significantly modified their electoral systems to address exactly the same kinds of problems of regional, ethnic, gender and political balance that Canada now faces. As the Canadian Law Commission recommended, fairness requires a mixed electoral system that combines individual constituency-based MPs with proportional representation.

The Liberal government, on the other hand, has stonewalled. On a motion presented by Ed Broadbent, a Standing Committee called for a citizens' consultative process to work in parallel with a parliamentary initiative on electoral reform, beginning in the fall of 2005. Nothing has happened. So much for Paul Martin's concern about the "democratic deficit." It may be in the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada to block progress towards electoral reform. It is not in the interests of Canadians. Our changes will make sure each Canadian's vote counts. (p. 26)

Beauty! But will proportional representation be a necessary condition for supporting a minority government? And will we get a credible process of public education and consultation leading to a referendum so Canadians can choose a fair voting system, or do we have to rely on political tinkering?

Conservative Party of Canada

A better democracy

Canada is a democracy, yet our democratic system has not kept pace with the needs of a changing society. Paul Martin used to talk about a democratic deficit, but his actions as Prime Minister have deepened it. A new Conservative government will be committed to significant democratic reform of our Parliamentary and electoral institutions.

The plan

A Conservative government will:

. Begin reform of the Senate by creating a national process for choosing elected Senators from each province and territory.
. Propose further reforms to make the Senate an effective, independent, and democratically elected body that equitably represents all regions.
. Restore representation by population for Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta in the House of Commons while protecting the seat counts of smaller provinces.
. Introduce legislation modeled on the BC and Ontario laws requiring fixed election dates every four years, except when a government loses the confidence of the House (in which case an election would be held immediately, and the subsequent election would follow four years later).
. Make all votes in Parliament, except the budget and main estimates, "free votes" for ordinary Members of Parliament.
. Increase the power of Parliament and parliamentary committees to review the spending estimates of departments and hold ministers to account.

Yes, yes, that's all lovely, but what about a fair voting system?

The Conservatives supported the all-party report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Subcommittee on Electoral Reform, but added their own supplementary report calling for a national Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform similar to the BC process. Does Mr. Harper support this policy?

Bloc Québécois

There is no discernable mention of proportional representation in the BQ platform.

In the second English language debate, Steve Paikin asked Gilles Duceppe: "In the last election your party won less than 50% of the vote in Quebec but it took more than 70% of the seats. Do you think this is fair?"

Duceppe answered "There is certainly a problem, but we're not the ones who invented that system." I guess that's his platform.

The Bloc supported the all-party report of the Subcommittee on Electoral Reform, but added their own supplementary report expressing reservations about the vagueness of the citizen consultation process, saying, "Quebeckers and Canadians have an important role to play, and the Bloc Québécois is afraid that giving the federal government carte blanche to decide how they are to be involved will defeat the whole purpose."

Tu penses?

Green Party of Canada

Green Party MPs will work to:

Create a broad-based, result-driven public consultation process to determine the form of proportional representation that best serves Canadians for the next federal election.

Support the legislative changes required to introduce the proportional representation electoral system recommended by the public consultation.

Introduce fixed election dates permitting political stability and fair elections.

Require a mandatory series of open leaders' debates during an election organized by an independent agency such as Elections Canada.

Move from the current partial ban on corporate and union donations to political parties to a full ban on such donations, modeled on Québec and Manitoba provincial legislation.

Reduce the mandatory $1,000 candidate deposit to encourage more Canadians to participate in the democratic system.

Lower the voting age to seventeen.

Great! How many seats did you say you had?

Michael Moore on Canadian elections

2006-01-21T04:11:00.000-05:00

Friday, January 20th, 2006

Michael Moore Statement on Canadian Election

Michael Moore is currently in production on his next movie. As an avid lover of all things Canadian, he has issued the following statement regarding Canada's upcoming election on Monday:

Oh, Canada -- you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right? I know you have a great sense of humor, and certainly a well-developed sense of irony, but this is no longer funny. Maybe it's a new form of Canadian irony -- reverse irony! OK, now I get it. First, you have the courage to stand against the war in Iraq -- and then you elect a prime minister who's for it. You declare gay people have equal rights -- and then you elect a man who says they don't. You give your native peoples their own autonomy and their own territory -- and then you vote for a man who wants to cut aid to these poorest of your citizens. Wow, that is intense! Only Canadians could pull off a hat trick of humor like that. My hat's off to you.

Far be it from me, as an American, to suggest what you should do. You already have too many Americans telling you what to do. Well, actually, you've got just one American who keeps telling you to roll over and fetch and sit. I hope you don't feel this appeal of mine is too intrusive but I just couldn't sit by, as your friend, and say nothing. Yes, I agree, the Liberals have some 'splainin' to do. And yes, one party in power for more than a decade gets a little... long. But you have a parliamentary system (I'll bet you didn't know that -- see, that's why you need Americans telling you things!). There are ways at the polls to have your voices heard other than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

These are no ordinary times, and as you go to the polls on Monday, you do so while a man running the nation to the south of you is hoping you can lend him a hand by picking Stephen Harper because he's a man who shares his world view. Do you want to help George Bush by turning Canada into his latest conquest? Is that how you want millions of us down here to see you from now on? The next notch in the cowboy belt? C'mon, where's your Canadian pride? I mean, if you're going to reduce Canada to a cheap download of Bush & Co., then at least don't surrender so easily. Can't you wait until he threatens to bomb Regina? Make him work for it, for Pete's sake.

But seriously, I know you're not going to elect a guy who should really be running for governor of Utah. Whew! I knew it! You almost had me there. Very funny. Don't do that again. God, I love you, you crazy cold wonderful neighbors to my north. Don't ever change.

Michael Moore

(Mr. Moore is not available for interviews because he now needs to address the situation in Azerbaijan. But he could be talked into it for a couple of tickets to a Leaf's game.)

Proportional representation in the news

2006-01-21T02:53:00.000-05:00

A couple of predictions

From: Wilfred A. Day
To: globe and mail letters
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:27 AM
Subject: a couple of predictions

I can't predict the result of the election, but I can safely predict two things.

Bloc Quebecois voters, who were 49% of Quebec's voters and got 72% of its seats last time, will be fewer this time but will get more seats. How weird is that?

Alberta Conservative voters, 62% of Alberta voters in 2004 with 93% of its seats, will get 100% of its seats, but be nowhere near 100% of its voters. What kind of democracy is that?

Let's make this the last unfair election. We need a voting system where every vote counts equally.

Wilf Day

public.opinion.politics.tv

Just thought I should report to you that Brian Gibb and John Trent had a terrific opportunity this morning to promote electoral reform during two hours on a pan-Canadian, bilingual, call-in TV show on CPAC for which we were the resident "experts". The question was, "Are you intending to vote and why. If not, why not".

There are many indications the vote will be higher on Monday. The viewers got a chance to hear more about PR etc for a longer time than they (or we!) ever imagined.

John Trent

Can Layton be trusted on vote reform?

from The Tyee's Election Central Blog

by Andrew MacLeod

NDP leader Jack Layton says the New Democrats won’t support a minority government, regardless of the party, without a commitment to electoral reform.

The NDP supports a Mixed Member Proportional system, he says, which combines local representation with an adjustment in the number of seats so that each party is represented in the 308-seat Parliament based on its share of the popular vote.

But if Layton’s promise sounds familiar, it’s because he said the same thing last time around. Despite a year and a half of propping up Paul Martin’s Liberal government, however, the NDP never pushed for a change in voting system.

That leaves Layton open to criticism. In an interview, Andrew Lewis, the Green Party candidate for Saanich—Gulf Islands said, “They didn’t do it. [Layton] can say anything he wants, you can’t trust him.” The Greens, by the way, support striking a B.C.-style citizens’ assembly to consider changes to the voting system.

What’s Layton’s explanation for the NDP’s failure to move electoral reform forward? “We came up two votes short so we weren’t able to impose that sort of condition.”

Read the whole article.

The above article originally appeared in the weekly "Monday". Here is a reply from Fair Vote Canada's Wendy Bergerud, an alumna of the BC Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

Thanks Andrew. I was at work today and only just got to read my mail. I'll forward this to Fair Vote Canada - they'll be very pleased to see you use their numbers.

I suppose that I should point out that the federal NDP did put more effort into this than you suggest. Ed Broadbent took the lead on this and there was a federal committee on electoral reform. Ed managed to get that group to recommend a process - it was to have two components - a citizens group and a group of parliamentarians. The citizens group was very weak, only being asked to determine their 'values' and then the parliamentarians would figure out how to 'interpret' this and recommend a system.

I finally found their report online -
http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=122500.

Their minutes are at http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteeList.aspx?Lang=1&PARLSES=381&JNT=0&SELID=e22_.2&COM=8988&STAC=1091702.

Ed Broadbent and some FVC types (including Wayne Smith) had a press conference some time ago berating the government for abandoning their deadlines (I can't find a URL for that now) - the government hardly did anything. Although apparently they have put out request for proposals to get someone to find people around the country and interview them for a day about their values (sorry - don't know where I'd find that URL!). But they are way behind the agreed upon deadlines.

This federal committee interviewed Ken Carty (the assembly's political expert on March 10, 2005 and Gordon Gibson who prepared the assembly's constitution. The minutes are at http://www.parl.gc.ca/infocomdoc/38/1/PROC/Meetings/Evidence/PROCEV25-E.HTM#Int-1168247 (what horribly long URL's!).

In any case, part of Ed's question to Ken and Gordon:

"Second, the particular concern I have, and it's the opposite to what I thought was a virtue originally, is the exclusion of people with political experience in the citizens' assembly. Not only were active politicians excluded, but anyone, as I recall, going back two elections who had active political experience was also excluded. My point is this seems to me a little like designing a health care system without asking the participation of doctors and nurses, which, in that case, would be a serious mistake. Therefore, I think it's a mistake, and that's what I want you to comment on."

Apparently Ed was quite keen on BC's citizens' assembly until he realized that we were going for the 'wrong solution' - that is, we were choosing STV instead of MMP. So, while I am pleased with Ed's committment to electoral reform (which, apparently he will continue to work on, even after this election), I am unhappy that he doesn't really trust the citizens to design their own system and has preconceived ideas about what would be best.

Ken did have a good come-back: "That it was just like designing a medical system without consulting the doctors . . . well, without commenting on the state of the medical system now, I suppose if you want to reverse the analogy, maybe this was designing a medical system by consulting the patients." (something that maybe the medical system should consider doing!)

Still, I think that it is a fine thing to have the Green Party breathing down the necks of the NDP about electoral reform. The more people who get pushing, the more reasonable change is going to seem.

Wendy

PS FVC's press releases are at http://www.fairvotecanada.org/phpBB/viewforum.php?forum=6&56. In the last one FVC challenges the press to present electoral information more precisely.

Taking part

from BCNG - The News

By COLLEEN DANE
Jan 20 2006

The title page of a 2001 study asks boldly a question that political scientists, and many citizens, have been considering for years now.

Is Canadian democracy in crisis?

The report, released after the 37th general election in 2000 by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada, was looking into the issue after the third straight federal election with declining voter participation.

From 75 per cent turnout in 1988 to 64 in 2000 (60.9 in 2001), CRIC looked into four possible reasons why people aren’t heading to the polls — the lack of competitiveness in elections, problems with a new voter registration system, changes in values held by Canadians, and rising levels of political disaffection or cynicism.

In the end, they confirmed the impact of the last two points.

“The challenge is to convince citizens that elections matter, either because their own votes make a difference or because their elected representatives do,” explains the paper in its summary closing.

Other academics who study this problem add other reasons to why the polls are seeing almost 40 per cent less than what should be there.

“The increasing disconnect between voters and their representatives in legislatures, the stream of promises not kept, the lack of ability for voters to hold governments accountable (other than simply defeating them at election time) has led to widespread disenchantment with formal politics, and less confidence in our democratic institutions and the sincerity of politicians to be sensitive to the population’s needs,” says Jackie Steele, a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa.

Read the whole article.

System needs fixing

from MyKawartha.com/Lindsay This Week
Jan 20, 2006

To the editor:

We face a very costly election because our employee team of hired/elected MPs didn't listen to each other, work and compromise, and work some more to get the job done.

What puzzles me is why we will hire the same people again. Shouldn't we hire a whole new workforce of folks who can work together?

To get better election results we need an election system that gives proportional representation. Not only does this system bring more voices to the table in fair representation but it could also nurture a culture of expectation of co-operative planning and problem solving. It may also lead to higher voter turn-out as those discouraged by the distorted results of the present system see some hope of having their priorities also considered.

A 30 per cent vote for party A would mean that party A would have 30 per cent of the elected members. This very rarely happens now for any party and never for all of them. Forty per cent of those who vote can elect a majority government.

The system we have has led to a lot of strategic voting and voters ignoring the big picture to vote on an isolated private priority. We need to be able to vote for a good plan for our country with which to face the next four years.

Ask the candidates what they will do to work towards a Canadian-built proportional representation election system. You might also ask if they are ready to work together this time for the common good or will we be back to wasting our tax money on another election in a few months?

Your vote gives $1.75 to the party of your choice. Even if that is the only result you can count on, vote and celebrate your freedom to do so.

Betty Borg
Peterborough

Keep at 'em, team

2006-01-20T23:29:00.000-05:00

More news from Fair Vote Canada volunteers at the all-candidates' debates, on the streets, and in the media.

Durham Chapter Update - Oshawa Riding Debate on The Sunday Edition Jan. 22

We had three members attend the Oshawa riding debate last night at GL Roberts CVI. This debate was hosted by Michael Enright and CBC radio. It will be broadcast this Sunday starting at 9:05 AM. We handed out flyers and had lots of support and interest.

The Green Party candidate brought up electoral reform early on during questioning from Michael Enright. This brought a roar of approval from the crowd!

During the questions from the audience section, I was able to ask the other three candidates whether they thought our electoral system was fair and if they would support a review and a process to possibly change our current system. The Liberal candidate, Louise Parkes, said she thought that our current system is OK and then talked about an elected senate.

The NDP candidate, Sid Ryan, feels that we need a change to a PR system and quoted some numbers on past elections. The Conservative candidate, Colin Carrie, said he would support a review of our system but was not familar with proportional representation and would like to get more information. Needless to say I made sure he got some of our literature after the debate.

I hope that my question makes it to national radio on Sunday. It should be in the first part of the second hour.

Thats all for now from the Durham Chapter.

Geoff Daw
Oshawa

Two things I went to yesterday:

Demonstration outside of the CBC and the environmental debate at City Hall suggested by David-Paul Sip.

The demonstration was prior to the taping of the Harper interview by the National last night. My fliers were taken by most people – good discussions. One guy who worked with Don Ferguson took several fliers to distribute since he had not heard of the video.

Environmental debate: I went to this primarily since Alan Tonks was slated to be there and of course I wanted to tackle him on PR especially with an environmental focus. But Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River) was pinch hitting for him, I thought to myself this is going to be good. I remember someone else questioning Lee on PR about a year ago and getting really weird response—totally uninformed. I was curious if he had learned anything. Rob Rishchynski (Green) and Pauline Courtlet (NDP) were also on the panel.

I stood up to ask the question and identified myself as being from FVC and was taken aback by applause! Now many of these folks are very aware of us and I had seen many before but there were some new but very nice response. I sold a membership to one of the new people.

If Lee had learned anything in the intervening time, he was not telling. Basically, he was touting not breaking the link of representatives with their riding and not having unelected people from the lists in the parliament. Hands shot up to challenge him but the moderator wanted to keep an environmental focus.

I talked to him after and pointed out about mixed system in NZ, Germany, Scotland and Wales. Also that people on the list are elected and riding and list members are often interchanged. Wendy Devine told him that PR gives better representation to women. He sees the representative as the major player in politics not the party. It appears he sees the party as interfering in a way so I can see PR as threatening to this type of politician.

He had no knowledge of the law commission report—(same thing I learned about John Godfrey—best kept secret on Parliament Hill, it seems). I offered to send him the link to get the report. He said not to bother he probably has it in his office.

I will probably send him the link anyway—also Godfrey—can’t hurt and they probably tossed it long ago.

;-)

June Macdonald
Toronto

The Fair Vote Canada National Capital Region Chapter gets busy!

All Candidates Meeting Report - Carleton-Mississippi Mills (Jan 18)

Report on All Candidates Meeting
Organized by The Stittsville Village Association
at the Goulbourne Town Hall
on Wednesday evening, January 18, 2006
from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Candidates: Gordon O'Connor (Conservative Party), Isabel Metcalfe (Liberal Party), Tasha Bridgen ( N.D.P), Tracy Parsons (Progressive Canadian Party) and Jake Cole (Green Party).

· There were 119 attendees at the meeting and the hall was packed.

· Candidates represented the Liberal, Green, NDP, Conservative and Progressive Canadian Parties

· Peter Black and Alex Campbell representing Fair Vote Canada were present.

· The organizers didn’t allow distribution of FVC fliers and literature inside the hall, but did give us a table in the foyer on which we displayed FVC material. Peter stood outside the halls’ entrance on the very narrow and slippery path and distributed fliers to people as they entered. Alex remained at the table and spoke to folk there. No memberships were sold but at least three people showed interest in joining.

· As people entered the hall they were asked if they desired to ask a question and if they said they did they were given half an “entrance ticket” for the draw for questioners.

· Alex drew the very first question of the evening, Unfortunately, Peter’s “number never came up”!

· Alex’s question: “Good evening. My name is Alex Campbell. I am a member of the Fair Vote Canada Movement and I am very concerned about the increasing number of Canadians who are apathetic about the political process and who feel cheated because their votes don’t count. For example, in the last federal election it took an average of 31,000 voters to elect one representative of the Bloc Quebecois, 111,000 to elect one member of the NDP and the Green Party, which drew 580,000 votes, didn’t elect one member. In the light of this blatant unfairness I ask all candidates for your personal views on and your Parties platform on reforming the electoral system by some form of proportional representation.”

· Responses: Greens and NDP candidates personally support PR as do their parties’ platforms. The Liberal and Conservative candidates are against PR and do not support PR. They both held, too, that their parties do not support PR. The Conservative candidate said that “members must be tied to their ridings so they can be voted out.” As a reason for not supporting PR. (I don’t remember the response of the Progressive Canadian candidate.)

· After the candidates’ responses, Alex, before leaving the microphone, thanked them for their responses and commented that it was obvious from the responses of some candidates that they didn’t know or understand what PR was all about. Alex urged the candidates to visit the Fair Vote Canada table after the meeting and take the literature to study. The Liberal candidate did this after the meeting.

Peter Black
Ottawa

Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington

All Candidates Meeting, Civitan Hall, Lanark, ON - Tuesday Jan 17

This meeting was sponsored by the Lanark Landowners' Association. About 175 people attended - very good turnout, since the village of Lanark has less than 1,000 residents and the surrounding township of Lanark Highlands has a population of about 5,000.

Candidates present were Scott Reid, Conservative, Ernest Rathwell, Marijuana Party, Mike Nickerson, Greens, Helen Forsey, NDP, Jerry Ackerman, Canadian Action Party, and Jeff Bryant, Progressive Canadian Party. The Liberal candidate, Jeff Turner, had declined and did not attend.

Helen Forsey (NDP) was the only candidate to mention proportional representation (in favour) in her opening statement.

Question on PR was the first to come up after the opening questions from the Landowners' Association.

Jeff Bryant, Progressive Canadian Party: In favour, also favours a fixed term for elections.

Scott Reid, Conservative Party - he is the party's critic for Democratic Reform. Cited an article outlining the Conservative Party's proposals that he wrote and that appeared in Parliamentary Review last summer. Also the dissenting report on electoral reform that the Conservative MPs wrote - believe last fall, he didn’t give date.

Believes federal government should adopt a citizen assembly model similar to that used in BC, have the assembly draft a new electoral system without politicians being involved. This should be followed by a national referendum on adoption of a new electoral system. Notes that in BC, 57% of those voting in the referendum supported the BC Assembly's proposals for electoral reform.

Mike Nickerson, Green Party. Definitely in support of PR. Among other reasons, because it would have given the Greens 12 seats in the last Parliament. Adoption of PR would help create a cooperative collaboration between the parties, make people's votes more relevant, ensure that legislation and policy took into account different points of view.

Helen Forsey, NDP: Agrees with PR. Expresses concern about bringing in a fixed term of office, could change the way that responsible government is meant to work in a parliamentary system. Should still allow for elections if a government is defeated on a major vote of confidence such as a government money bill.

Jerry Ackerman, Canadian Action Party. Seems to favour a system of consensual decision making, notes the practice of the Iroquois Confederacy in which the governing council was chosen/elected by women and representatives were subject to recall. Regrets that this element of Iroquois governance was not taken up by Benjamin Franklin when he studied the Iroquois system and drew on its ideas for the American constitution.

Patricia Marsden-Dole
Ottawa

What was Ben thinking?

Scott Reid is in favour of a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform, and bless him for that! Next week, if he is the Minister for Democratic Renewal, will that be the policy of his party and his leader?

All Candidate Meeting Report - Ottawa Vanier (Jan 17)

Sponsored by Lowertown West Community Association, Byward Market Improvement Association and Centre de Jour Guiges.

Present: Mauril Bélanger (Lib.), Paul Benoit (Cons.), Ric Dagenais (NDP) and Raphaël Thierrin (Green).

Absent: Marxist-Leninist Party and Marijuana Party candidates.

Fair Vote Canada: Stephen Woollcombe, Charles Osborne.

Audience: about 120 people.

Before the meeting began Steven and I handed out FVC material and briefly (and not so briefly) talked to members of the audience.

The meeting began with opening remarks of the four candidates present. None of them mentioned PR in their remarks.

Questions from the audience were chosen by people getting a number from one of the organizers before the meeting started. Steven and I had agreed before the meeting started that he would ask the question he had prepared (I had already prepared a question myself as well). He was number 4 and he therefore got to ask it early enough in the meeting before the audience got either bored or restless. Steven asked the candidate for "their" opinions on electoral reform as opposed to their parties’ platforms. The candidates seemed to disregard that and gave more or less their party platform answers.

The Conservative candidate said that he was "open to electoral reform" but not at the cost of weakened ties to the constituents and large electoral districts. He did not want it to be subject to the undue influence of political parties and felt it should be submitted to the electorate.

The Liberal member responded that the government accepted the essence of the Parliamentary report on electoral reform. It objected to the timeline-- there was simply not enough time to set up a wide consultation with the electorate (especially youth). He agreed to the need for an element of proportionality.

The NDP candidate said that electoral reform had been an issue with the NDP for 10 years now. Also that Ed Broadbent was disappointed with the results. He also said that any talk of electoral reform should go to the people for consultation.

The Green Party candidate said that a referendum on electoral reform should go to the whole electorate. As for any future problems of minority governments and elections caused by them-- they would only cause a short interruption in the work of the government (Note: as I was making notes on this candidate's response I was interrupted by a Green Party volunteer handing out Party brochures in the row I was sitting in so I am not certain that I got the gist of his remarks correctly!)

Further in the evening, in response to a question from the audience on what all the candidates felt was the most critical issue facing Canada at this time, the Green Party candidate said that it was electoral reform ("truly accountable governments"). The NDP candidate said health issues, the Liberal member said children (especially health and education) and the Conservative candidate rambled on with some sort of vague generalities.

There were a total of 22 varied questions from the audience. In the final remarks by the candidates, Mauril Bélanger did make a passing comment about "planted" questions (I think it was the a question from a member of the audience about the Haiti coup coming from somebody with an orange toque!)

Charles Osborne
Ottawa

Strategic voting redux

2006-01-20T19:57:00.000-05:00

Toronto Star

Left's missed opportunity
NDP breakthrough needs united effort

Jan. 20, 2006. 08:47 AM
CHANTAL HÉBERT

Is the New Democratic Party a flag of convenience to be waved only when nothing stands in the way of a Liberal parade? In the dying days of the campaign, it certainly seems that way.

If Jack Layton wins more seats on Monday, it will be in spite of the best efforts of a vocal section of the Canadian left. In the lead-up to the vote, many of his party's natural allies are joining their voices with that of Paul Martin to beg NDP sympathizers to abandon Layton for the Liberals for the second election in a row.

In contrast with the 2004 election, that is akin to asking progressive voters to leave a lifeboat to hop aboard the Titanic. The Liberal ship is leaking from so many holes at the close of this campaign that one can only wonder how long it would be before it sank if it ever beat long odds to sail to a narrow victory on Monday.

Still, the rationale of the activists who are rushing to Martin's rescue is that an intellectually bankrupt minority Liberal government is still better than a Conservative one.

Is the Canadian left really so weak that it needs to hide in the tattered skirts of a beleaguered Liberal party at the first hint of a right-wing wind? Those of its members who so willingly take a hand in the Liberal salvage operation can't be doing it in the expectation that the beneficiaries of progressive favours will be grateful. Not unless they ignore recent history.

The NDP would have emerged from the last election with the balance of power had not so many of its supporters answered the desperate calls for help of the Liberals. Yet, Martin's initial budget last year was anything but a token of gratitude to the left-leaning supporters who rallied to his cause. On the day of its presentation, it secured the instant support of Stephen Harper; the Tory leader knows a Conservative budget when he sees one.

It was only after Martin realized that the fate of his minority government might rest with the modest NDP caucus after all that he changed course.

Win or lose, the post-election priority of the Liberals will be to recapture the small-c conservative votes they have lost to Stephen Harper. That is hardly a prescription for a left-leaning course. On Canada-U.S. issues for instance, the top potential contenders for Martin's post are closer to Harper's views than to the current Liberal campaign rhetoric.

To this day, the federal NDP and the Canadian left are haunted by memories of the 1988 free-trade election but for different reasons. The NDP remembers it as the campaign that resulted in its best showing ever. But many left-leaning activists remember it as the time when a split in the anti-free-trade vote between the NDP and Liberals allowed Brian Mulroney to sail on to a second consecutive majority.

There are times though when looking in the rear-view mirror is the recipe for a crash.

The advent of the Bloc Québécois has changed the dynamics of the House of Commons. It may be likely to hold the balance of power in any minority Parliament but its sovereignist calling makes it an unpalatable partner for either of the major parties.

That is why the NDP, even though it did not have quite the numbers, did exert real influence in the last Parliament.

In many parts of Western Canada, the NDP is more likely to stop the Conservatives in their tracks than the Liberals, thus preventing the election of a majority government. In other parts of the country, New Democrats do pose an equal threat to both main parties. But after the election, the NDP is more likely to find common ground with the Liberals. The Conservatives for their part have no other party to turn to sustain a minority government.

A record NDP showing could have opened the door to a coalition government with what would have been left of the Liberals. That would seem, at least to this casual observer, to be the only scheme that could have resulted in the advent of a truly progressive government. But such an NDP electoral breakthrough would likely have required the sustained efforts of a united left rather than a recurrent sabotage of the Layton campaign.

When the Canadian left does its post-election soul-searching, it should ponder whether some of its leading voices allowed their fears to make them lose sight of an unprecedented opportunity to advance their values.

CHP strategy revealed!

2006-01-20T05:55:00.000-05:00

I received the following from someone in the Christian Heritage Party. They have a distinctive strategy... right about now, I suspect Martin would like to have a Campaign Central Prayer Coordinator.

Larry

Please Pray for Candidates' Activities: Refer to the Candidates’ Activity page of the CHP Election 2006 website ("http://www.chpelection.ca/election-riding-events.html") for a list of the candidates’ activities.

From Campaign Central Prayer Coordinator: I received a wonderful flurry of emails in a variety of responses to CHP Candidate Larry Heather’s request “to ask God for at least seven CHP candidates to be elected on Jan. 23rd., and that they would hold the balance of power in the new parliament”. As we pray for the CHP efforts, let’s remember above all to pray the words our Lord taught us to pray, “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Fair voting in the news

2006-01-20T05:06:00.000-05:00

Fair voting reform is being discussed at all-candidates' meetings across the country, and being reported on in the local press and major media. There are too many articles to report, but here are some samples.

from the eye-opener, Ryerson University

Indicative of his transformation into a more serious politician, Tindal says the health of Canada's democracy is more important to him than partisan ideology.

"Women aren't as represented in parliament as they should be, minorities aren't as represented in parliament as they should be, and those are all symptoms of our system that rewards the first person past the post, instead of actually looking at what the electorate says."

Near the end of his campaigning, Tindal spoke of proportional representation to a packed room at an all-candidates debate at Ryerson. As his party continues to rack in the popular vote, it struggles to have concentrated support and representation in the legislature. But Tindal says he would be in favour of proportional representation whether or not it helped his party.

"I'm cautiously optimistic against odds that we're going to figure this thing out and that's more important than anything else.

from the Whitecourt Star, Whitecourt, Alberta

Other issues, such as affordable housing and proportional representation in parliament were also addressed, as the NDP were on record for throwing their support behind for changing the electoral system.

Lapierre says the NDP would be changing the system, if elected. Love says there is a need for proportional representation because it doesn’t always reflect the popular vote with the current system. However, Merrifield highlights that this system has been used in other areas, such as New Zealand, which has caused problems. Wierenga and Schaefer were also in support of a new system, which would give smaller parties representation.

from the Shoreline Beacon, Port Elgin, Ontario

Robertson said an NDP government would be sure to take political power out of the hands of lobbyists. The NDP, Robertson said, would keep Senate appointments based on merit and not acquaintances. He added that MPs who wanted to switch parties would have to hold an election in order to change political suits.

Most significantly, Robertson said, the voting system would be changed by an NDP government to include proportional representation.

an editorial in the Brooks bulletin, Brooks, Alberta

Democratic reform: representative vote

Any mention of democratic reform during this federal election campaign and electors seem to take note. After all, use the term democratic and immediately people think the results of a subsequent reform movement will mean fairness, as can be best described by one person, one vote.

But when we consider any policy initiative on this subject that has been advocated by party leaders so far, we find there is little in the way of substance and even less when it comes to fairness. All Canadians really expect when it comes to elections is fairness which means that the resulting government should be representative of the vote. But what we get instead is just the opposite.

Fair Vote Canada president Wayne Smith points out that the current first-past-the-post system has been the single most important factor for keeping the Conservative party from breaking through in Ontario and Quebec.

For instance in 2004 the Conservative Party received more votes in Ontario than they did in B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan combined, Smith says, but they won only 24 seats in Ontario compared to 61 in the three western provinces.

“In fact, their 301,000 in Quebec elected no one at all in the last election while 178,000 votes in Saskatchewan elected 13 Conservative MPs.”

We can add to this that approximately 40 per cent of voters in Alberta’s last provincial election did not vote for Ralph Klein’s Tories and yet look at the majority they won.

Approximately six million Canadians will cast a vote this coming Monday and yet they will not elect someone to represent them in parliament. In the end, some parties will get far more seats than the number of votes warrant and others will win fewer seats than their votes say they should get. Some will not elect a single candidate even though they might receive close to a million votes across the country.

If we are to have true democratic reform there must be changes that result in a parliament or legislature that is representative of the vote. Ordinary Canadians, not politicians, should start this ball rolling.

from the Jasper Booster, Jasper, Alberta

Noel Lapierre -- NDP
What do you hope to accomplish, if elected?

The legacy of the years of Conservative/Liberal governments in Canada is alienation. That’s what really upsets me when I talk to people -- there is a serious disconnect with politicians. I am proud to support Ed Broadbent’s ethics and accountability package for that reason.

Ed wants to reform Canadian politics so that it works for people -- not against them, and not just for the politicians. To make your vote count I will push for a proportional representation system, to lead to a fairer distribution of seats in government.

from the Fort Frances Times, Fort Frances, Ontario

[Green candidate] Aegard said the best way to encourage people of all ages to vote would be to have proportional representation rather than the current first-past-the-post system.

“If we had proportional representation, the Green party would have about 15 seats,” he noted. “Then people would feel empowered to vote for who they want to vote for.

“You can have 21 percent of the vote and win every riding in this system. That is not right,” he stressed.

The Liberal party is the only one opposed to proportional representation.

Editorial in the Edmonton Journal:

Cutting a different deficit
The Edmonton Journal
Thu 19 Jan 2006
Page: A18
Section: Opinion

The last time Canada stood on the brink of political change, the deficit on everybody's lips was fiscal, not democratic.

If the Conservatives win power on Monday, will they have as much success eliminating the latter as Paul Martin had with the former?

And, just maybe, parlay that success into a long run in power the way the Liberals were rewarded for budgetary accomplishments that seemed impossible when they came to office in 1993?

Unfortunately for Stephen Harper's party, it may turn out he's stuck with the far tougher project.

A shortage of dollars you can count.

A shortage of democracy is a more nebulous, eye-of-the-beholder concept.

Depending on where you live, or what side of a particular issue you stand on, there may be sharp disagreement about what widens or narrows the deficit.

----------------

Finally, what about the House of Commons, a body that has its own unpopular distortions favouring Maritime and rural constituencies at the expense of urban ridings like Edmonton's?

What about a House of Commons in which it is perfectly possible for the votes of two-thirds of Albertans to fill 100 per cent of the seats, leaving fully one-third with nothing but the consolation they have contributed $1.75 to the party of their choice.

Traditionally in our first-past-the-post system, parties that win power and even majority governments, despite the fact that 60 per cent of people vote against them, have no interest in some form of proportional representation that would elect Parliaments more reflective of the public's preferences.

If he wins, therefore, nothing would reinforce Harper's credentials as a democratic reformer more than a willingness to break that pattern.

Op-ed in the Victoria Times-Colonist

Victoria Times-Colonist
18-Jan-2006
Page A11
First past the post ignores voters' wishes
By Shoni Field

Our problem with federal elections in B.C. has always been attributed to seat distribution. The election is not usually close enough that we have enough seats to affect the outcome, and therefore the result is known before the polls close in B.C.

But we are, in all likelihood, heading into our second election night in a row where voters across the country will be watching what happens in B.C. to determine at the very least whether the next government is minority or majority.

Are we anticipating waking up happy on Jan. 24? Nope, don't think so.

Why not? Well, it turns out that having the outcome undecided until our votes are counted is not the same as having our vote count. The same issues that led a majority of British Columbians to vote for the single transferable vote last May hold true federally.

The "first past the post" system distorts our preferences, wastes votes, arbitrarily marginalizes small parties and new ideas and unfairly turns minorities of votes into majorities of seats and monopolies of power. Under our current system, voting is a minimal form of democratic participation.

As an example of how little it matters what any single one of us does at the polling booth, only about 66 of the 308 federal seats are considered too close to predict in the last week. Granted, a disproportionate amount of them are in B.C., but there is still not enough to get excited about.

So around 15 of B.C.'s 36 seats are still considered to be "in play" -- that represents roughly 42 per cent of eligible voters, of which only about 63 per cent will turn out on election day. These figures mean that only about 26 per cent of eligible British Columbians have the potential to actually affect the outcome with their vote. Far fewer will vote for somebody who is elected.

Not surprisingly, first past the post -- a system that evolved from a series of power holders begrudgingly giving up just enough power to prevent a revolution -- does not serve the needs of the voters.

Like those that have gone before, the 39th Parliament will have been elected under a system in which the voters are largely irrelevant. The job of an electoral system is supposed to be to allow voters to choose who represents them. If the result does not reflect the intentions of the voters, then the electoral system has failed. First past the post fails us at this most basic level.

The B.C. Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform was historically unique in giving the decision of how we elect our representatives to voters. BC-STV was crafted by ordinary people after they listened to thousands of other ordinary people, and then endorsed by a majority of B.C. voters in referendum.

The rest of Canada, and jurisdictions around the world, watched what we did and are learning from our process. We were leaders, and we can be leaders again. The rest of Canada shares our antipathy to the current election. In the coming months there is an opportunity for British Columbians to lead the call for a system that will allow us to escape this cycle of voter-irrelevant elections.

We might not anticipate waking up happy on Jan. 24, but we can plan to wake up with a mission. Let us plan to make you and me, the voters, relevant when we elect our 40th Parliament.

Shoni Field is a director of Fair Voting B.C. and was a member of the B.C. Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

editorial in the York Region Era Banner, Newmarket, Ontario

Proportional voting provides better voice

Jan 19, 2006

Name a local priority on which you would concentrate if you are sent to Ottawa Jan. 23, a voter asked hopefuls in Thornhill during an all-candidates meeting last week.

It wasn't as much a question as a plea that came after 90 minutes of candidates regurgitating party lines, interspersed with shots at opponents and their leaders.

Let's face it, with few exceptions, most voters cast their ballots for a party or its leader. Local candidates are most often viewed as the embodiment of national party policy.

There's nothing wrong with casting your ballot for the party, rather than the candidate.

The problem is with our electoral system.

And despite a grassroots campaign that appears to be gaining momentum, no one is rushing to fix it.

The solution is proportional representation.

Politicians always seem to support the concept in principle but, like Senate reform, no one ever seems to act on it.

In a nutshell, parties win seats in the legislature in proportion to their share of the votes cast. A party that receives 25 per cent of the national vote should occupy 25 per cent of the seats in Parliament.

It's a proven system that has been in use in European nations and others around the globe since the beginning of the last century. New Zealand switched to mixed member proportional representation in 1993.

The idea is being promoted by groups across Canada, including Fair Vote Canada, a multi-partisan citizens' campaign for voting system reform.

The organization makes a good case, referring to the June 2004 federal election in which more than 500,000 votes were cast for Green Party candidates across the country, yet not one was elected. Meanwhile, fewer Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada alone elected 22 MPs.

Also during the last election:

· The Liberals garnered just 7 per cent more of the popular vote than the Conservatives -- 36.7 per cent versus 29.6 per cent -- but ended up with 35 per cent more seats in the House.

· Even though the NDP recorded more of the popular vote than the Bloc Québécois, they won just 19 seats versus the Bloc's 54.

It's similar to what prompted the move toward change in New Zealand: back-to-back elections in which the National Party retained power by winning more seats in Parliament despite the opposition Labour Party earning more votes across the nation.

Backed by a committee of prominent Canadians, including former Ontario Lieutenant Governor Lincoln Alexander and York Region Newspaper Group columnist David Suzuki, Fair Vote Canada last week called on our next government to initiate a public consultation process on government reform and hold a referendum, allowing Canadians to decide on the best voting system.

"It's time to stop dodging the issue," said Wayne Smith, president of Fair Vote Canada. "The 60 per cent of the electorate who still vote are about to go to the polls again. We will try to elect a representative Parliament and we will fail because the voting system will distort what we say."

If we're voting along party lines anyway, let's adopt a purer system that better reflects what voters really want.

Proportional representation would lead to a House of Commons that's more in line with the way Canadians vote than does our current first-past-the-post system.

It would also drive up voter turnout, experts say, as it means a vote for a party other than the big three would no longer be considered a protest vote. It would count as much as one cast for the Conservative, Liberal or NDP would.

We choose the way we are governed. It's time we chose a better way to elect those who represent us.

More news from the trenches

2006-01-20T04:26:00.000-05:00

Fair Vote Canada volunteers continue to dog the candidates across the country.

Did an interview on electoral reform for Trent Radio and have an article in this week's Arthur, the university newspaper. Letters have also appeared in the Peterborough Examiner and Peterborough This Week .We have attended all all-Candidates where we distributed material and raised the issue. I also had a chat with and gave literature to the Conservative candidate, who was totally in the dark about PR.

Mark Finnan,
Peterborough

Hi All,

I'm overdue for an update on my activities during the election so I thought it time to complete this particular "To Do" item. I'm going to focus on the Liberal and Conservative replies in the three debates that I have attended given that it is widely know where the Green Party and NDP stand on the issue.

Last night I attended the Weston Community Coalition debate in my riding of York South-Weston and handed out pamphlets to the large majority of those in attendance. I was glad that Wayne and Mala were also able to attend, and relieved that Wayne asked his PR question. The audience actually got a direct position from the Liberal MP Alan Tonks against PR, unlike the last debate where he only skirted the question by suggesting that it be "studied further".

I was also disappointed by his complete lack of credibility on the subject by suggesting that a change to the voting system was dangerous; a statement he also made last Monday. He does support an elected Senate and fixed election dates though. As an aside my mother was also in attendance and sitting next to Mr. Tonks' executive assistant who intelligently repeated the "dangerous" mantra of her boss. Thankfully my mother responded by informing her that Bill Graham and his wife appear to be very well versed on the subject and support it. This was the end of the discussion as she had no response.

The Conservative candidate also supported the idea just as he did last time but he also turned to the issue of Senate reform and an elected Senate as he did last Monday before I refocused him to get a direct position on PR.

I also attended the Bay Corridor BIA debate last Thursday. Of note was Bill Graham's support of PR and specifically MMP. I also had a great discussion with his wife who appeared to be a strong supporter of Fair Vote, commenting that she has the pamphlet on her fridge at home for her guests to read, and even asked for additional pamphlets to share with her friends. The Conservative candidate Louis Reford didn't answer the question for a lack of knowledge and instead turned to discussing an elected senate.

What impressed me most was Bill Graham's reply to my question, seeing that I made an effort not to mention PR. Although I was a little too cute with the question the fact that Mr. Graham gave a reply in support of PR and specifically mentioned MMP was more than I anticipated. It's remarkable how much influence a good woman can have on her husband.

Sincerest Regards,
David-Paul Sip
Toronto

REPORT: Ottawa-Vanier
2005-01-16
Colonel By Secondary School
Attendance: around 200 - 250

FVCers: Bob Bowes, Hank Walker, Stephen Woolcombe

The audience proved more receptive to the flyers we distributed than at U of O on the eleventh. There was a more varied demographic than at the previous debate, and the Colonel By students were interested and engaged in political issues as well. As before, no candidate mentioned PR during their initial presentation.

The first part of the debate consisted of six questions, many of them quite thoughtful and complex, prepared by some senior students from the school. After providing answers, the candidates were allowed rebuttals and could debate each others' points.

During these questions, some candidates mentioned PR!!! Ric DAGENAIS (NDP) was the first to bring it up in his answer to Q#1 about ethics in government. He said that there were systemic ills that caused poor ethical practices in government, and one of many pieces of the solution that he gave as examples was the adoption of PR. Later on Rafael THIERRIN (GRN) attacked the Liberal whistleblower legislation; Mauril BELANGER (LIB) defended it saying that all parties participated in drafting the legislation. No, said THIERRIN, the Green Party didn't, though if the system were proportional, 12 Green MPs would have been in parliament representing their views. This drew strong applause (and not just from us!)

But that's not all! Q#4: Would you support a free vote on same-sex marriage? Would you support it or not? After Paul BENOIT (CPC) said he supported a free vote in the House, THIERRIN questioned how a vote could possibly be "free" if a party with 35% of the vote could get 60% of the seats. THIERRIN mentioned PR again in his answer to Q#6 on the environment when he mentioned coalition governments and their ability to deliver sound environmental legislation, using windpower in Germany as an example.

These debates went overtime; when the public got to ask questions, the moderator only allowed the first five. Our own Bob Bowes was fifth! He asked Darryl Bandoro's question from an Ottawa-Orleans debate, repeated here for convenience:

"I'm a member of Fair Vote Canada, which is a national movement fighting to improve our voting system so that for once we can get the government we actually vote for. In Monday night's leaders debate all the candidates supported reforming our election system. Mr. Harper said the current system has 'serious problems', and Mr. Martin admitted that it absolutely needs fixing. Yet, last year the government was supposed to begin a report on election reform. It didn't happen. In the next parliament, will your party publicly commit to immediately start the process of consulting Canadians, so that by the next election our votes will really count?"

Some candidates had taken notes the day before and modified their answers:

1. Ric DAGENAIS (NDP)'s answer was similar to the previous day's, noting Ed Broadbent was on the committee trying to move electoral reform forward but that "he guessed" the Liberals slowed it down.

2. Paul BENOIT (CPC)'s answer was identical. I will cut and paste: the Conservatives will look at electoral reform through the lens of four principles: (1) that the MP-consituent link not weaken; (2) that ridings don't become too large; (3) that parties don't get too much control over lists; and (4) that electoral reform be subject to a referendum.

3. Mauril BELANGER (LIB)'s answer was a bit more accessible to the uninformed public, saying that he accepted the substance of the committee and that the Liberals are committed to a Romanow-style dialogue with Canadians, without pre-judging any electoral systems, but they are committed to the process. This drew applause.

4. Raphael THIERRIN (GRN) took notes the previous day and it showed. He said that MMP would satisfy all four of the CPC's criteria outlined by BENOIT, and cited New Zealand as an example. He too supported a broadbased consultative process formulated in a referendum. And MMP would result in better regional representation. Again, some applause, but weak.

Commentary:

Thanks to Darryl again for the question. The NDP and CPC answers were rote and virtually identical to the previous day's. BELANGER (LIB) changed his to be more accessible to the general public (his previous answer was targeted to the question and somewhat technical) and only THIERRIN (GRN) completed his homework assignment, so to speak, putting BENOIT (CPC) in an interesting position. It'll be interesting to see how they answer in the next debate.

Obviously it takes awhile to educate the public on the ins and out of PR and electoral reform. So the statement "We woulda had 12 seats if things were fair," can yield applause fairly easily, but throwing around terms like MMP is less effective from the candidates' point of view. Nonetheless, Bob, Stephen and I were pleased with our efforts.

Thanks again!!

Cheers,
Hank Walker,
Ottawa

Churchill Seniors' Centre (Ottawa Centre)

Not a long report this time. The place was packed--260-300 people, with some turned away--including Marianne! Mike Cassidy, Dave McNicholl, Jan Teevan and I were there.

We ran into some problems at the beginning. The organizers were unhappy that we were there, told us we couldn't hand stuff out, couldn't talk to people, couldn't put stuff on chairs....Anyway, you know me, and we ended up with a table, at the most advantageous location in the hall. It didn't prevent the President coming over to upbraid us, but a soft answer turneth away wrath. We gave away a ton of literature, and Mike Cassidy posed our question (I had secured a seat right by the microphone for him).

This caused one person to return our literature indignantly--I guess because Mahoney identified Mike as "a former MP from the NDP" --smooth move. Paul Dewar gave a much better answer this time than at the Glebe, focusing in on the Parliamentary committee, the Liberals' failure to move in October, and the necessity of citizen consultation. Bravo! Mahoney had dropped his "FPTP in the House and PR in the Senate" approach, which I now think was his personal "let's get rid of the notwithstanding clause" lightheaded moment. His position is now that the provinces should provide the leadership, in other words his original position 18 months ago. Questions were limited to two candidates only, so that's what we got.

Two more in Ottawa-Centre (I gather the Jewish Community Centre one tomorrow night is closed to the public, but if anyone knows differently, please let me know soonest): Carleton Heights Community Association (Friday night) and St Paul's (Saturday night). Details, Paul Dewar tells me, will be up on his website tomorrow morning.

Yours in electoral reform,
John Baglow
Ottawa

Hello All :

The other day I introduced myself in a concise way that seemed to have a good effect, it is a little different then what I've done in the past.

"Hi my name is _____ and I'm a volunteer for the Fair Vote Canada movement."

It is like of like saying, "Hi my name is Joe and I'm Canadian." That is, it identifies who I am, gets the Fair Vote Canada name in the question, and it kind of shows how, even invites others to be a part of this movement. I've heard that we have "MO" on this issue now (momentum), so let's go with it.

Kevin Peck,
Toronto

Good one, Kevin!

I've also been learning the value of concision. I'm down to "I live in this riding (optional), and I'm one of the growing number of Canadians who are realizing that we can't hold our governments accountable because we don't get the government we vote for."

And congratulations on getting Bill Graham's signature on the Fair Vote Canada petition!

Wayne

I just attended an all candidates meeting at the University of Guelph, and I asked about PR. All the parties were strongly in favour except the Liberal candidate, who didn’t attend, and the Conservative candidate (Brent Barr), who indicated his lack of support for pure PR but declined to comment on mixed-member plurality, which all the other parties (NDP, Green, CHP, Communist) supported. Subsequently, I was interviewed by a Guelph Mercury reporter, and I did my best to stress the importance of PR to Canada’s future.

Anthony Giordano
Guelph

I have been handing out info at the All Candidates meetings. I have found that many people now know what we are talking about and are in favour. This is a real change from even 2 years ago.

Our Independant, NDP, Green, and Marijuana candidates all spoke in favour of PR, (and got applause) new Liberal knew little about it, new Conservative saw no need for it.

Thanks for your work..keep it up.

Betty Borg
Peterborough

As a supporter we wanted you to know that we talked to our local paper: Exeter Times Advocate about Fair Vote and today's paper has an article by the editor explaining what PR means. The FVC website is included in the article.

Exeter is a small town North of London , Ontario and has a pop. of 4600...........
Maybe if we all do our bit, the message will take hold?!

Keep the faith,
Ena de Haan
Exeter

At lunch today, I and dozens of others attended the AGM of Northumberland Community Futures Development Corporation, for the annual update on how they are spending $1.5 million to create jobs, start small businesses, build community capacity and skills, etc. Of course our MP was there.

As I was leaving, I overheard a local businessman buttonholing our MP. He was very concerned about declining voter turnout. "Wouldn't rep. by pop. help? You know, so that every vote would count?" He meant proportional representation, as the conversation quickly confirmed.

Even people who don't know what to call it are for it.

I didn't know the man personally, and as I was planning my approach, he disappeared down the staircase. An opportunity to sign up a new member missed. Damn!

Wilf Day
Port Hope

(Volunteers handed out Electoral Dysfunction flyers at a rally in front of the CBC building in Toronto.)

Not hoards of people but almost everyone took a flier and appeared interested--these social justice types are a natual constituency I think--Some say it is preaching to the converted but I did not find that. One guy had been at an all candidates meeting in Beaches last night and said proportional representation got a good chunk of air time and then he asked for a quick explanation of PR. Was happy--I am sure he will want to know more later.

I talked to some cops (and there were piles of them to control what, I would like to know?)--I always like talking to them--they are virgin territory--they often know so little about democracy stuff--one guy, upon explaining distortions in our system said I didn't know that...music to a teacher's ears!

June Macdonald
Toronto

We had three of our members out at an All Candidates meeting for the Oakville Riding this evening that was sponsored by the CAW. We gave out brochures to everyone that entered the doors, repeating "Information on voting system reform". Most were very happy to receive the brochure.

I lined up to do a question on voting system reform, but somebody else, not in our membership, beat me to it. He used some of the comments that were in the brochure that had been handed out. The Green Party candidate and NDP candidate both used information from the brochure in their talks/answers in supporting proportional representation. The Liberal candidate was also in favour of proportional representation. The Conservative candidate said it is worth looking into, but it was clear that other democratic reforms would be their priority. He also stated that this would mean no more majority governments. To his surprise, a lot of people clapped when he said that.

When people were leaving, now that they had heard a little about proportional representation through an audience question, I chose to say, "Some more information on proportional representation," and presented them with the Fair Vote Canada tabloid. Very few said no thank you, and most were very pleased to receive more information.

Some other comments I received were:

- I know what it is; I want to know how it works
- It would work provincially, but not federally
- Wait for the successes provincially before you push for a referendum federally
- Do you have anything about Italy in that document? I bet you don't. (I corrected him and said we did).
- How big a region would Nunavut be a part of with proportional representation? It's already big enough.

Anyway, I must say, I was the first to say that I didn't want this election. However, I think PR has gained a lot of momentum, so maybe it was worth it after all.

Bronwen Bruch
Oakville

FAIR VOTE CANADA CHALLENGES CANADA’S NATIONAL MEDIA TO USE FIVE GUIDELINES FOR ELECTION COVERAGE

2006-01-18T10:37:00.000-05:00

In an open letter to CBC, CTV, Canwest, the Globe and Mail and Maclean’s, Fair Vote Canada today challenged the national media to follow five guidelines for their coverage of next week’s election results.

“We urge the media to take these steps to eliminate erroneous and misleading coverage of this critically important national event,” said Wayne Smith, President of Fair Vote Canada.

“When covering past elections, the Canadian media have focused almost exclusively on what the voting system produced rather than what voters said with their ballots,” said Smith. “Unfortunately, their core assumption – that the results reflect what voters said – is simply wrong. “

“Media professionals are expected to look behind the curtain for the real story,” said Larry Gordon, Executive Director of Fair Vote Canada. ‘We call on Canada’s leading national media to do that on election night by applying the following five guidelines to their election coverage.”

1) Anchor your commentary and analysis on what voters have actually said with their ballots, rather than blindly reporting the number of seats won by each party.

For example, in the last election, the NDP won far more votes than the Bloc. If the voting system treated all voters equally, the NDP would have had more MPs than the Bloc, but the voting system gave the Bloc nearly three times as many seats. When reporting on the seats won by each party, the media should provide a parallel report on how many seats each party would have won if every voter had an equal vote.

2) Do the same for provincial and regional results.

In the last election, the media reported the Conservatives “swept” 26 of 28 seats in Alberta. In reality, nearly two out of five Albertans voted other than Conservative, but the voting system gave those voters only two out of 28 seats. Journalists should not make sweeping statements about Albertans, Ontarians and others, as though seat results reflected the way they actually voted.

3) Provide fair, balanced and accurate commentary on the treatment of voters supporting each party.

In 2004, election commentary noted the “failure” of the Green Party, which won more than a half-million votes. But election analysts provided no comparative commentary on how other groups of partisan voters were treated by the voting system. For example, fewer than half-million Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada elected 22 Liberal MPs. Election analysis should include a comparative scorecard on how the voting system treats the voters of each party and to what extent it diverges from voter equality.

For example, in the 2004 federal election:

The Bloc Quebecois elected one MP for every 31,113 votes.
The Liberals elected one MP for every 36,905 votes.
The Conservatives elected one MP for every 40,601 votes.
The NDP elected one MP for every 111,969 votes.
The Green Party elected zero MPs for 582,247 votes.

4) Provide an efficiency rating for the voting system.

Citizens cast votes to elect their Parliamentary representatives. But how efficient is the system? Give viewers and readers the answer by providing an election night and post-election analysis of the number of effective votes (votes that elected MPs) and wasted votes (those that elected no one) for voters in each province and the nation. Provide comparative electoral efficiency figures for other democracies. Offer commentary on the implications for democracies whose voting systems waste an average of 50% of all votes, compared to those with 5% or fewer wasted votes.

5) Do not make inappropriate and erroneous statements about winners and losers.

Based on the issues noted above, it follows that traditional descriptors of the winners and losers must be scrapped. Do not state that a party receiving far less than a majority of votes has received a “mandate from the people”. Do not state that the “voters have spoken” when referring to seat results. Do not make exaggerated and erroneous statements about regional political preferences based on seat allocations.

Momentum for change

2006-01-17T16:04:00.000-05:00

Last night, I attended a candidates' meeting in York South-Weston, surely the poorest riding in Toronto. York South Weston is basically a railway corridor with some depressed industrial areas and modest housing on each side. The hot local issue is a new commuter train line that is proposed to run through the area to get punters from downtown to Woodbine racetrack. The residents would rather have a subway line.

The Liberal incumbent is Alan Tonks, former Mayor of the City of York, former Chair of Metropolitan Toronto, and former Chair of the Greater Toronto Area Services Board. None of these entities still exist. Tonks is a genial fellow with a strong personal following, and is probably not in danger of losing his seat.

Once again, a packed, boisterous house, probably 500 people in a high school auditorium.

The NDP candidate, Paul Ferreira, stole my fire by mentioning proportional representation and phony majority governments in response to a question about integrity and governmental accountability, so I changed my approach.

This meeting was very well run, and they were cutting off your microphone after 30 seconds, so I cut to the chase.

"I'm concerned that we can't hold government accountable if we don't actually get the government we voted for," I said, "so I'm glad to hear Mr. Ferreira talk about proportional representation, and I'll need to hear from the other candidates on that, but I want to push Mr. Ferreira a little further.

"It's all very well for politicians to tinker with the voting system, but clearly, politicians have a vested interest here. History shows us that if we let politicians design the voting system, we get a voting system that's good for politicians. Will Mr. Ferreira and the other candidates commit to a citizen-driven process, so that the people of Canada can have the opportunity to choose a voting system that's good for people?"

Mr. Ferreira was happy to have the opportunity to voice his support for a national Citizens' Assembly similar to the one held in British Columbia.

Candidates in this riding have also been asked about voting reform at previous meetings, so Mr. Tonks had an answer ready. He said that he is concerned that PR might be divisive for Canadians, but he supports the idea of a Citizens' Assembly.

After the meeting, I thanked him for that, and gave him our tabloid to read. I also thanked Ferreira for his support.

Once again, we see persistence by our volunteers building awareness among politicians and setting the ground for the eventual legislative change we will need to get a fair voting system.

Thanks to Fair Vote Canada volunteer David-Paul Sip for getting to the meeting early and handing out literature.

Holy manners, Batman!

2006-01-17T15:03:00.000-05:00

Fairlawn Heights is a sedate part of Toronto, but it got pretty lively last Saturday night. They had to get out all of the stacking chairs for the folks gathered in the basement at Fairlawn United Church to hear their candidates.

The moderator asked for respect for everyone, and asked them all to display their "holy manners", a concept apparently familiar to most of the assembled congregation. Sure enough, all of the candidates got the same warm applause when introduced.

All that changed as the night wore on. By the time I got to the mike, a dozen questions had already been asked, and the audience was getting impatient with long-winded questions and low-content answers.

The Liberal incumbent is Joe Volpe, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and lead minister for Toronto. Here is the question I put to him and four other candidates:

"I am not a member of any political party. I am putting my time and energy in this campaign into promoting Fair Vote Canada, a multipartisan citizens' movement to change our voting system so we can get actually get the government we vote for, for a change."

(By this time, the audience was already yelling, "Question! question!")

"I see that the Conservatives are running at 38% in the latest polls. Some polls say 40%. Now, in 1997, Jean Chrétien got a majority government with 38% of the votes. In 1990, Bob Rae got a majority government in Ontario with 38% of the votes."

(By now they were howling, and I had to shout the rest.)

"My question for the candidates is this: Do you think that's fair? Is it fair that a party with 38% of the votes can get 100% of the power for four or five years, claim a mandate from the people, and set about making fundamental changes to our public policy? And if you don't think that's fair, what are you going to do to make sure that Canadians get the chance to choose a modern, fair, proportional voting system?"

Minister Volpe's answer was, "Yes." In fact, that was his entire answer. Didn't want to talk about it. Go figure.

The NDP and Green Party were, as usual, onside.

The well-spoken Conservative candidate, Peter Coy, was unexpectedly sympathetic. He mentioned the 1993 debacle where the Progressive Conservatives got two million votes and won only two seats, waking up many conservatives to the fact that there might be problems with our voting system. Mr. Coy said that he had reservations about PR, but was willing to discuss the matter.

After the meeting, I spoke to Mr. Coy and explained that we are not selling any particular voting system. We are asking for a process of public education and consultation leading to a referendum so that the people can choose a fair voting system for Canada.

I also spoke to the NDP and Green Party candidates and thanked them for their support.

Two things struck me about this evening.

First, the fact that these candidates had already been asked about voting reform at a previous meeting by other Fair Vote Canada volunteers meant that they had been forewarned that this would be an issue, and that they had better bone up on it. In the case of some candidates, this meant that they had changed or developed their position, and we have seen the same thing in other ridings.

The more people know about voting reform, the more they are likely to come around to our point of view. This is how we build momentum for change.

Second, I was struck by the fact that all the meetings I have been to have been crowded and boisterous. Canadians are getting engaged in this election! Maybe we will get a better turnout this time.

At 9:30, the moderator cut off the questions, but the next guy in line pleaded that he had come all the way from Calgary to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship. After consulting the audience, the moderator took pity on him and allowed him to ask his question. Bizarrely, the guy then grabbed the mike, walked up to the front of the room and started playing Phil Donahue.

"Mr. Volpe," he started, "do you consider yourself a good relationship builder?"

"Yes." said Volpe, apparently his stock answer.

"OK, that's your question." said the audience, miffed at being had, and got up and went home, without bothering to wait for closing statements.

Rob Newman is a regional coordinator on the Fair Vote Ontario Council. He turned to me and said, "The best political theatre is always in church basements."

When a democracy is not really democratic

2006-01-17T14:53:00.000-05:00

By John Gray, CBC.ca Reality Check Team | Jan. 16, 2006

Before Canadians go to the polls on Monday, one conclusion is already clear. That is, whatever happens, the results will be curiously at odds with the votes that were actually cast.

There will be no big surprise about this, because Canada and most of the rest of the English-speaking world are cheerfully defiant that its voting system is determinedly undemocratic.

A vote here is not worth as much as a vote there. Indeed, sometimes a vote is worth nothing, so that whoever casts that vote has no voice in determining the shape of Canada's government.

Thus, in the 2004 election, the Liberals got 37 per cent of the vote across the country but ended up with a disproportionate 44 per cent of the 308 seats in the House of Commons. They got 135 seats when a proportionate share would have been 113 seats.

In the same election, the New Democrats got 16 per cent of the vote and won just 19 seats. The Bloc Québécois, in contrast, won 12 per cent of the vote but got 54 seats.

The reason for the disparity is that the NDP vote is scattered in 308 ridings across the country while the Bloc does not even bother to contest ridings outside Quebec. But in Quebec's 75 ridings, the Bloc got 49 per cent of the vote.

There are other even more startling imbalances. In the 1997 federal election, the Liberals won 99 of Ontario's 101 seats, yet they won less than half the vote. In Prince Edward Island the Liberals won all four seats with 45 per cent of the vote.

Most politicians agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with a system in which there is such a disparity between votes cast and seats won. The harsh reality is that all votes are not equal.

The best that can be said about the current system, known as first-past-the-post, is that it is more likely to produce majority governments and thus a certain stability in the federal capital.

But even that is only partly true. In the last 40 odd years there have been 14 federal elections, six of which have resulted in minority governments. So majorities are by no means guaranteed.

Even when there is a majority of seats, it does not by any means necessarily reflect a majority of votes cast. In 1997 the Liberals won a majority of the seats in the Commons with a mere 38 per cent of the vote.

Whatever the apparent injustice of the first-past-the-post system, it has remained stubbornly resistant to change.

For a time after the last election it appeared there might be some leverage for change. NDP Leader Jack Layton announced he would demand a referendum on electoral reform if his party held the balance of power in the minority government.

Layton and the NDP had been particularly outspoken about electoral reform, but when push came to shove, electoral reform was not on the table. Layton supported the Liberals with no mention of reform.

More recently Layton said "proportional representation will be a big part of any discussion" about support for any future minority government.

Both Liberals and Conservatives have said they would consider electoral reform but neither party has shown particular excitement for the idea – perhaps because the larger parties are more likely to win a majority under the first-past-the-post system.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said his party convention last March expressed some interest in electoral reform "although we haven’t adopted any particular specific model."

Fair Vote Canada, a lobby group for electoral reform, reported that Liberal leader Paul Martin "continues to avoid the issue." In recent years both British Columbia and Prince Edward Island have held referendums on whether they should adopt proportional representation at the provincial level but both fell short of the necessary level for approval.

HARPER COULD SET RECORD FOR PHONIEST MAJORITY IN CANADIAN HISTORY

2006-01-17T10:40:00.000-05:00

According to poll results and seat projections released yesterday, Stephen Harper may be close to setting a new Canadian record for the phoniest majority government ever.

The current record is held by Jean Chrétien, who captured a majority of seats in 1997 with only 38.5 per cent of the popular vote.

According to the January 13-15 Ipsos Reid survey, the Conservatives have 38 per cent support but, thanks to distorted results created by the first-past-the-post system, are poised to win 152 seats, just a few shy of majority control of Parliament.

“This is ludicrous,” said Wayne Smith, President of Fair Vote Canada, a national citizens’ campaign for voting reform. “Here we are – a major western democracy in the early 21st century – wondering whether a party that six in ten voters do NOT support will gain absolute control of our Parliament and political agenda for the next four or five years.”

The following shows the projected seats from the Ipsos Reid survey, compared with the number of seats each party would get if every vote had an equal effect on electing MPs.

Conservatives (38%): 152 seats projected – when 117 seats are deserved

Liberals (26%): 66 seats projected – when 80 seats are deserved

NDP (19%): 31 seats projected – when 59 seats are deserved

Bloc (12%): 59 seats projected – when 37 seats are deserved

Greens 5%): 0 seats projected – when 15 seats are deserved

“As the chart illustrates, we will soon have yet another badly skewed and unrepresentative Parliament,” said Larry Gordon, Executive Director of Fair Vote Canada.

Gordon pointed out that Canada’s dysfunctional voting system generally creates phony majority governments, which is why most major democracies scrapped first-past-the-post voting between 50 and 100 years ago.

“Since World War One, Canada has had only had four legitimate majority governments that were elected by a majority of voters” said Larry Gordon, Executive Director of Fair Vote Canada. “Every other majority government was created by our antiquated voting system, not the voters.”

We write letters . . .

2006-01-16T03:09:00.000-05:00

Fair Vote Canada volunteers have been successful in getting letters to the editor published during this election campaign, as well as calling in to local phone-in shows and getting coverage in local media. Here are a few examples.

From the Wellington Times (Prince Edward County):

TIME FOR A RENEWED ELECTORAL SYSTEM...HOW ABOUT PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION?

It is about time that our politicians began to recognize that the electoral system in Canada needs some change in order to better reflect the voting patterns across the country. People who don't vote for the winning candidate in a riding are effectively disenfranchised.

Although some federal funds are awarded on the basis of the percentage of votes that parties get nationally, no one is elected on the basis of these votes. We need to look beyond our borders to countries like New Zealand and Germany where different electoral systems are in place to recognize, at least in part, the votes of those who do not vote for the winning candidate in each riding. Adoption of some form of proportional representation would lead to parliaments that better reflect Canadians' electoral choices.

Consider, for example, some statistics about the last election in 2004. Thirteen Conservative MPs were elected in Saskatchewan, but none in Quebec, where almost twice as many people voted Conservative. Across the country, the NDP received far more votes overall than the Bloc Québecois, but the Bloc gained nearly three times as many seats and held the balance of power. In the prairie provinces, the Conservatives attracted twice as many votes as the Liberals but won seven times as many seats. A half-million Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada elected 22 MPs while more than half a million Green Party voters across Canada elected no one.

In recent decades, Canadians experienced only one legitimate majority government (Mulroney 1984). The remainder were phony majorities, including Jean Chretien’s 1997 government, elected by 38.5 per cent of the popular vote. In many provinces, when a party captures 50 to 55 per cent of the vote, that is enough to effectively wipe out representation for other parties. In 1997, half the voters in Ontario voted Liberal and elected 101 MPs, while the other half elected 2 MPs from other parties. PEI, Ontario and Alberta have had the most distorted federal election results over the past twenty-five years.

Among the provinces, Saskatchewan has the highest percentage of wasted votes, where voting has been a futile exercise for nearly six of ten voters.

In the last New Zealand election, 1% of the voters cast wasted votes that elected no one. In Germany, 4%, and Scotland, 6%. In the last Canadian election, 50% cast wasted votes. In 1984, 37% of eligible voters voted for the winning party, and 25% did not vote. In 2000, 25% of eligible voters voted for the winning party, and 39% did not vote.

Our political parties are beginning to understand that there are problems with our first-past-the-post voting system where the winner of the most votes wins the election, but they have been slow to realize how our dysfunctional electoral system subverts democratic values, drives wedges between regions, unfairly rewards and punishes various political parties and makes a mockery of representative democracy and government accountability. Given the way our system ignores many voters, it is not surprising that so many don't even bother to vote.

We could end up with a Conservative or Liberal government, majority or minority, on January 23. Unfortunately, neither party has developed a strong plan for reforming our electoral system and doesn't seem to be interested in consulting fairly with Canadians about a reformed voting system. It is about time they did. The NDP has some better ideas, but not much chance of forming a government.

Wayne McNulty

From Northumberland Today:

Candidates asked for opinions on voting reform

By Valerie MacDonald

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 09:00

Local News - A spokesperson for Fair Vote Canada’s Northumberland chapter won’t say which federal candidate comes closest to what the organization wants to see as Canada’s new voting system.

The local chapter is “pleased” all four answered the questions, Port Hope lawyer Wilf Day said during an interview yesterday, “but we’re not going to criticize anyone for answering the questionnaire.”

Fair Vote is a multi-partisan group, he stressed.

“I don’t want to be quoted as ranking them. The answers speak for themselves.”

Although all of the candidates “are prepared to seriously consider Canada adopting a new voting system they did not all agree on how it should be chosen or what it should look like,” the press release from the local Fair Vote Canada chapter stated.

Fair Vote promotes proportional representation, where the number of seats parties held in Parliament are in proportion to votes cast.

One of the questions put to the candidates asked if they supported an “independent, citizen-led process to allow Canadians to choose a fair voting system.”

Northumberland-Quinte West’s incumbent Liberal MP Paul Macklin did not reply, but Conservative candidate Rick Norlock, NDP candidate Russ Christianson and Pat Lawson of the local Green Party supported the idea.

“Yes,” Mr. Norlock stated. “But the citizen-led process must be made up of a genuine cross-section of the Canadian population.”

Mr. Macklin also declined to answer the question about whether he “personally support(ed) the principle that all voters are equal, no vote will be wasted, and every citizen will have a fair and equal voice,” states the media release.

All of the other candidates replied “yes” to the question.

All of the local candidates in the upcoming federal election said a new voting system should include accountable government, but only Mr. Christianson and Mrs. Lawson said it should accurately reflect the will of the voters, the media release continued.

The NDP and Green candidates supported these four objectives of a new voting system:

proportional representation so that parties should have “no more and no fewer seats than their popular support warrants”;

fair opportunity for women, and for minorities and aboriginals;

fair geographic representation; and

real voter choice.

Mr. Norlock and Mr. Macklin “did not commit themselves,” states the Fair Vote Canada summary of the candidates’ replies to the questionnaire.

From The Gateway (University of Alberta):

Andy Hladyshevsky, a lawyer who received a BSc, LLB and MBA from the University of Alberta, is running as the Liberal Party candidate in Edmonton Strathcona.

Q: What, if any, reforms need to be made to Canada's government structure (such as electoral or senate reform)?

A: I have real big issues with first-past-the-post; at the end of the day, if number one doesn’t get 50 per cent plus one, number one should go against number two, and a week after the election we do the whole thing again, and we elect somebody with at least 50 per cent of the vote. That also gets away from the vote-splitting issue that makes things a little more difficult for some of the parties. The Liberals and NDP together have always had more votes [in Edmonton Strathcona] than the Conservatives, so that tells us that we’re not a Conservative riding, but with the nature of the vote, people think, “You vote Conservative through and through, virtually consistently for 40 years.” I think Canadians are so frustrated that there needs to be that sort of watershed change in the system. In terms of senate reform, I think Canadians want to see federal-provincial discussions to move it to a different level. And I haven’t seen a proportional representation proposal that works on a federal level yet, but I’d be willing to see some put forward so we can at least have some logical discussion.

Mr. Hladyshevsky has identified the problem, but not the solution. What he proposes is not proportional representation -- but it's nice to see he's willing to talk about it. That's all Fair Vote Canada is asking for -- let the people decide!

Anne McLellan, the Deputy Prime Minister from Edmonton, is also talking more and more about PR.

- Wayne

Dear Fair Vote folks,

At page bottom are letters to the editors that I have been submitting to newspapers and magazines both locally and nationally.

I was able to get an interview with a local radio station (BKR - Kootenay broadcast radio), during which I outlined the importance of changing our voting system.

Volunteers have been assigned to attend most of the all-candidate meetings in our riding (BC southern interior), and I have made some outreach to other ridings in the province.

The basic question I am suggesting be asked is:

"Are you in favour of a fair voting system, where the number of seats held by the partys accurately reflects the popular vote (namely proportional representation)? And if so, what are you willing to do to achieve this and what public involvement would there be in this process?"

This puts the question in a format that explains itself without a lengthly preamble (most all candidate meetings specify questions only). It also defines proportional representation in laypersons terms. Many voters do not understand the terms "proportional representation" or "electoral reform". These are the very people we need to get onside. It also pins the candidate to defining an action plan and puts in a plug for public input.

LETTER # 1
What would Canadian politics look like if Canadians actually got what they voted for during our elections? If we had a fair voting system that matched the number of party seats to the popular vote, our government would be very different. For example, in the last federal election the Bloc would have won 38 seats instead of 54, the NDP would have 48 seats instead of 19 and the Green party would have 13 seats instead of none. Our current "winner take all" voting system misrepresents our votes unfairly to all parties. For example over 300,000 people in Quebec voted Conservative but did not win one seat while less than 180,000 Conservative voters in Saskatchewan won 13 seats.

Look at the results for yourself on the website for Fair Vote Canada www.fairvote.ca and Elections Canada. It is time for Canadians to join the majority of democracies in the world who have changed to a fair voting system (proportional representation). Become informed and demand change from the candidates running in this election.

LETTER # 2
The Canadian federal voting system is a mockery of democracy. It puts many voters in a dilemma of voting for a party they don't want in order to defeat one they despise.

Our votes are not fairly represented on the basis of popular vote to party seats held. Majority governments are often formed with a minority of the votes and political parties manipulate voters regionally to their advantage.

The time is overdue for us to trade in our outdated and highly unfair voting system and join the majority of democracies who have adopted some form of proportional representation.

It takes about one half hour for the average voter to understand how these systems work. On Rememberance Day we are reminded that our soldiers fought and died for our right to vote. One half hour is a small sacrifice in comparison. Become informed, visit Fair Vote Canada www.fairvote.ca and Elections Canada. If you are not satisfied with our current system, demand change from the candidates running in this election.

LETTER # 3
Our Canadian voting system is a joke. Here are some rib ticklers from the last federal election:

Over 300,000 Conservative voters in Quebec got no seats, while fewer than 180,000 Conservative voters in Saskatchewan won 13 seats.

Over 500,000 Green voters won no seats, while less than 500,000 Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada won 22 seats.

The NDP had more votes than the Bloc but the Bloc won nearly three times as many seats.

And here is a real side splitter: in past elections, majority governments are often formed with a minority of the votes.

The funniest thing is that no elected government has addressed this problem. Unfortunately, the joke has been on the Canadian voters.

Let's have the last laugh and demand a fair voting system (proportional voting) from the candidates in this election.

Check the figures stated at: Fair Vote Canada www.fairvote.ca and Elections Canada.

LETTER #4
The real threat to Canadian unity is not the Bloc, it is our outdated and highly unfair voting system. In the last federal election, if we elected our representatives to government factoring the popular vote, the Bloc would have won 38 seats instead of 54. As well, the 300,000 Conservative voters in Quebec would have elected six or seven MPs to speak for them, and the Quebec voters would have had real choice. The distorted election results we get do not serve anyone's best interest.

It is noteworthy that during the leadership debate, Mr Duceppe brushed off the question on electoral reform, saying that he did not invent the system we are using.

Fair proportional voting systems have been adopted by the majority of the world's democracies. It is time we joined them. To see how these systems work, visit www.fairvote.ca.

Become informed and demand a process with public involvement to reform our voting system, from the candidates running in this election.

All the best, Dave Carter

Wayne;

I plagiarized some of your blog material and sent this Letter to the Editor of our local daily rag, the Chronicle-Herald. Hope it's OK with you.

John Csutorka
Chair, Fair Vote Nova Scotia

That's what I'm here for, John!
- Wayne

Dear Editor

Are you as disgusted with the negative election ads as I am? Well think about this. The purpose of negative ads is not to attract votes, but to drive away the other guy's voters, and to discourage people from voting at all. It is a major contributor to the cynicism and apathy that permeate our politics.

What is not commonly understood is how all this is conditioned by our current, winner-take-all voting system. The object of the current game is to get 40% of the votes so you can get 60% of the seats and 100% of the power. There is no incentive to be reasonable, to negotiate, or to compromise. Every party takes the stance that "Everything we say is right, and everything they say is wrong." This kind of attitude and environment keeps a lot of reasonable people out of the political arena, and particularly women.

Proportional representation, on the other hand, tends to generate coalition governments. The sharing of power tends to lower the level of frustration and testosterone. It also means that politicians have to tone down their rhetoric a bit. It's dangerous to call somebody the devil's spawn when you might have to make a deal with them next week. Countries with proportional voting systems tend to have greater voter satisfaction with governments and politicians. They elect more women and minorities and, on the average, they get higher voter turnout. They also have good economic performance and superior environmental policies.

Negative advertising is terribly destructive, and a threat to democracy. It is time that Canada dumps the archaic winner-take-all voting system that is responsible for this disgusting practice.

John Csutorka, Chair,
Fair Vote Nova Scotia

Hi Larry and Wayne;

Chris Thomas, reporter at the Simcoe Reformer, took a press release which I brought to the paper's offices and expanded it into an interview with Wayne. As soon as I can, I will photocopy the article and mail it to you.

Stephana Johnston

Hi folks,

I made Letter of the Day in "The Record" weekend edition. They did do some minor editing, but the message is still loud and clear. Below is a copy of my published letter and the link to it on the Record site.

Cheers,
Andrew

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

from The (Kitchener) Record (subscriber only)

Electoral system produces unfair results

ANDREW TEICHROEB

(Jan 14, 2006)

True democracy means many things. It means that every vote counts and that every citizen matters.

It means that all regions are represented, that more women and ethnic minorities are elected, and that there is a high voter turnout. It means that your values are represented in Parliament and that voters are voting for something instead of against something. Finally, it means that the government is accountable to the people.

Sound too good to be true, like a dream? Wake up -- this is a reality.

This democratic system is called proportional representation and is used in 81 nations, including most major Western democracies.

Why are we still using an antiquated system that elects phoney majority governments without the majority of votes? Why do we continue to allow a system that breeds corruption and contempt for democracy?

The winds of change are blowing. Let's send a clear message in the days ahead and make this the last unfair election.

Andrew Teichroeb,
Fair Vote Ontario Council Member

from the Pickering News Advertiser

Ajax-Pickering candidates discuss representation

Jan 12, 2006
By Keith Gilligan Staff Writer

DURHAM -- With Conservative hopeful Rondo Thomas a no show, the zingers were missing as candidates in Ajax-Pickering Riding stuck to the issues during a debate Wednesday.

Mr. Thomas wasn't at the debate, held at the Pickering Recreation Complex, as he was attending a funeral. Around 300 people turned out for the event, sponsored by the News Advertiser, Rogers Television and Durham Radio. Questions came from a media panel and audience members.

Voter apathy could be addressed by implementing a form of proportional representation, according to Green Party hopeful Russell Korus.

"Wouldn't it be great to pick and choose the best ideas of each party. That's what proportional representation is," he said.

"Ask someone why they vote Conservative and they'll tell you all that's wrong with the Liberals. Ask a Liberal and they'll tell you all that's wrong with a Conservative. It's the lesser of two evils. Proportional representation will make people more excited. People will feel they really have a say in Parliament."

In the 2004 federal election, "we should have had 13 MPs and we had none. Proportional representation needs to be implemented. It's a great way of doing it. It would make our system more fair."

Kevin Modeste, the New Democratic Party candidate, said "both the NDP and myself support proportional representation.

"It's the way to go. With a 21st-century reality, it's time politics and government reflect our reality."

People have to be challenged. "Voting critically is the best way," Mr. Modeste noted.

In his closing remarks, he added, "Vote critically, not traditionally."

Christian Heritage Party hopeful Kevin Norng also supported proportional representation.

"Those opposed to it are those who stand to lose the most power," he said. "We need to look for a type that works. There are 14 types. We have to find the best one for Canada.

"If we encourage proportional representation, people would feel their vote really counts."

Liberal candidate Mark Holland said proportional representation "as a pure system isn't fair. As a mixed system, we have to look at that."

As an MP, he looked into lowering the voting age to 16, adding it's a "disturbing trend young people don't vote."

The key, he added, was "getting young people excited in the process."

News from the campaign trail

2006-01-15T15:34:00.000-05:00

Fair Vote Canada volunteers are hitting the candidates' meetings here in Toronto and all across the country, and asking them, "What about a fair voting system for Canada?" Here are a few of their reports.

Yesterday I reluctantly got up at 7 am on a Sunday morning to attend a St Paul’s all-candidates meeting at Beth Tzedec congregation with Joyce Hall, a member of the Fair Vote Canada Toronto Chapter executive. And it was damn cold to boot.

The auditorium was huge, and it was the first all-candidates meeting where I had to have my bag checked at the door by a heavily armed, hulking big security guard!

No matter, they had coffee and cookies, and it turned out to be a great event for us.

The moderator was Janice Gross Stein of the Munk Institute, who we see on TV all the time. They had only three people on the platform, Carolyn Bennett (the incumbent Liberal), Peter Kent (Conservative), and Paul Summerville (NDP). They would not let the Green candidate on the panel!

The questions were to be written down and would be selected by Janice Stein. I hate these since I never seem to get picked.

My question was too long to boot:

"Canada has 21% women representatives. We stand at number 42 in the world in women’s representation. Most countries with proportional representation have increased numbers of women in parliament. If elected, would you support a process whereby Canadians will be given an opportunity to vote on a new voting system?"

I was bowled over when this question was the first asked. She said something like this question was important to her and proceeded to read it, but changed the last sentence to “Do you support moving to proportional representation?”.

The answers were positive on the whole, but waffling, as politicians are hard wired to do.

Carolyn Bennett said it was hugely important, parliament is not an attractive place for women -- basically a locker room of winners and losers. We have to support a different way of voting.

After they had finished, the moderator asked point blank: do you support PR in parliament?

Summerville (NDP): yes
Bennett (LIB): yes
Kent (CON): Yes with some modifications.

June Macdonald

I was at the King Edward Hotel All-Candidates' meeting last night (Jan.11th) in Toronto Centre.

There was a PR question. Bill Graham essentially says he is having a change of heart, and that the Liberals need to study it more. (They have been 'studying' it ever since the 1970's of course, that did not come out.) The Conservative, Reford, was unsupportive. (Sorry I forget exactly what he said, it was that memorable.) Shapcott, NDP, gave extensive support and filled in the audience on the NDP progress of this file. (He gave all credit to Ed Broadbent.) The Green candidate, Chris Tindal, gave an impeccable performance. Bill Graham had complimented him -- 6 times -- throughout the evening. One of those compliments was in his closing speech. Chris stated that PR is the Green's NUMBER ONE priority. Many people approached him after the debate and gave him 'heck' for running Green and not Conservative or NDP -- they really like him. The Communist candidate, Johan Boyden, gave a powerful speech, especially in his closing statements. He cited PR as a priority and also, he was the last to speak, talked a little about how the vote will be wasted in this election among the candidates that spoke before him.

The most interesting aspect of the evening was the level of awareness of PR in the public! PR was on the tip of the tongue of at least 50% of those present.

Kevin Peck

I attended the all-candidates meeting in Don Valley East last night.

In contrast to the the two all-candidates meetings I've attended in St. Paul's riding, I was reminded that we still have a lot of work to do outside the downtown area.

As supposed counter-arguments to PR, Israel and Italy were once again trotted out. The highly partisan charge that PR is only good for small parties was raised. The concern about "endless minority governments" was also brought up -- however, interestingly, that brought forth guffaws from the audience, who appeared skeptical about false majorities. Unlike St. Paul's, where all candidates agreed that PR was worthy of consideration, the Conservative candidate in Don Valley East was staunchly opposed. Of the three candidates in favour of considering PR, none gave arguments that were convincing to the audience. Unfortunately, they mostly spoke in partisan terms, and in doing so, lost credibility.

Glen MacDonald

Hi all,

June, David-Paul Sip, and I were at the meeting at the Lawrence Heights Community Centre on Wednesday night.

The discussion focused heavily on black issues and I personally didn't feel comfortable or appropriate asking a question about fair voting in this venue when so many people in the crowd were more concerned with their friends and relatives dying and being poor. It crossed my mind though, when the chair of the meeting mentioned the numbers in the black community in Toronto and I was tempted to point out that a PR voting system would make it unnecessary for them to unite in pockets to put black people in Parliament, and would allow sheer numbers to accomplish their goal, but as I said above...not the point of the meeting.

Anyway, I personally got a lot out of a long discussion with a young black woman there. I accomplished my goal for the evening of learning more about the black community, but PR wasn't mentioned in the actual debate. However, we did pass out a fair number of flyers and people were reasonably receptive.

Charlene Sutherland

Hi all,

Tonight I attended the all-candidates debate on poverty held at the Royal Ontario Museum. An excellent debate.

This was another pointed debate for which a specific question on voting systems didn't seem appropriate, but without me having to ask, PR came up anyway. A woman asked about including more women in government, and the NDP candidate mentioned a "new system including some type of PR" to accomplish this. I plan to email him to say that I was there and heard him, and to thank him for supporting it.

For anyone interested, this debate will be broadcast on CPAC at 2:00 for 2 hours on Friday, January 13th. Included in the panelists was Stephen Lewis, former Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations and, well, really noted guy on African issues.

Charlene Sutherland

Hi everyone,

I went to the Wednesday event at Temple Sinai in North York with the Eglinton-Lawrence candidates as well - these guys must be getting tired!

Peter Coy (C) said that he was in favour of PR, Patrick Metzger (G) and Maurganne Mooney (NDP) were both obviously in favour, but Joe Volpe (L) seemed opposed, and when my question was asked he pulled out the losses in BC and PEI as examples that the public didn't want PR.

Darn...there was no way to let the audience know why those referenda did not succeed (super-majority requirements, low awareness, etc.). Just so you know his stock response.

Anyway, I handed out loads of flyers, and two other Fair Vote volunteers were there and handing out newspapers as well. There were probably over 200 people in the audience - totally packed big room.

Here's the question I submitted - it was read as the last question:

"Canada is one of the last major Western democracies still using a winner-takes-all voting system. More than 80 other nations moved to proportional representation electoral systems many years ago, where every citizen's vote counts and the resulting governments are stable, cooperative, and representative of the diversity of the country's citizens.

"What are each of your views on electoral reform, particularly in the current climate of voter dissatisfaction with politics and low youth turnout in elections, and what will you personally do to promote a referendum process that would allow Canadians to select the voting system they wish to have?"

While the question got murmurs of 'good question' from some in the audience, the answers were pretty bland in general, although Patrick Metzger for the Green Party was very funny answering why he was obviously in favour, and Peter Coy pulled out the Kim Campbell 'landslide' in 1993, when the PC Party got two million votes and elected two MPs, as why it was in the Conservatives' interest.

Good luck Saturday Alice! Maybe explain to Joe Volpe before the debate the reasons why the BC and PEI referenda failed, so he might not go telling the whole audience the public doesn't want this.

Jacqueline

Hi Alice,

Just to let you know, I spoke with Peter Coy (Conservative candidate) at the North York event this past Monday. It was a pretty good conversation. He had some concerns but overall seemed interested in the idea of electoral reform and PR.

Best,
Brian Hoessler

Hi Wayne,

I attended the Brampton West candidates debate tonight. Since it was held at a high school, most of the questions were posed by students, read by a panel of them. (However, the audience was made up of adult voters in this riding.) Since I am a member of the community association who was co-hosting this event, my question got asked. (Electoral reform - PR). The candidates who answered they were for PR, were, as expected, the Green Party's candidate Japal Massey-Singh, and the NDP's Jagtar Shergill. The Libs and Conservatives were rather noncomittal.

These candidates are not in my riding (mine is Brampton-Springdale). My riding's candidates Anna Mather (NDP) and Ian Chicchio (Green Party) also support PR, and both these parties said they have voting reform on their agendas.

However, after the debates, I circulated the room, talked about PR, and passed out some Fair Vote Canada flyers (about 50).

Quite a few of the more informed people with whom I talked were aware of PR and were for it (even some of the conservative-leaning ones). One guy who'd studied political science and had travelled throughout Europe said it was a good thing, but said that "we have to educate our Canadian public before we can make serious headway". Similar opinions were voiced by several people.

Best regards & Peace,
Annamarie

(also: http://verbena-19.blogspot.com)

Hello everyone:

I wanted to report (albeit very belatedly) on a successful fundraiser that took place last Saturday in Victoria. Preston Manning, who was in Victoria to act as "Governor-General" of the student model parliament, agreed to appear at an electoral reform event jointly organized by Fair Voting BC and the Fair Vote Canada Victoria Chapter.

The event was a great success - the room was full, a number of federal candidates (from 3 different parties) were in attendance and the (not insignificant) profits were split between the FVC Victoria Chapter and Fair Voting BC. Congratulations to all the organizers: Alastair Murdoch, Derek Simon, Diane Perry, Orion Carrier, Wendy Bergerud and especially Bruce Hallsor, who secured the participation of Mr. Manning and spearheaded the organization of the event. It was a truly multi-partisan event both in terms of organization and attendance. My apologies if I have omitted any of the event organizers.

Now the onus is on us in Vancouver to stage a similarly successful event!

Stephen Broscoe
Chair, Fair Vote Canada Greater Vancouver Chapter

Hi everyone,

I attended the "All candidates meeting" for Chatham-Kent-Essex last night in Leamington. I was able to give everyone in attendance a "Make Elections Make Sense" brochure (approx. 150). People were very interested and I observed many people taking the time to read the entire brochure.

I also was able to ask a question. I asked Conservative candidate Dave VanKestren if he would urgently press for electoral reform, and more specifically PR. His response was pathetic. He claimed that there was nothing wrong with our electoral system.

Jim Comisky, the Liberal candidate, agreed. Funny how those who benefit from the system seem to think it works.

Kathleen Kevany, NDP candidate, was very well spoken and passionate in her response in support of PR. She made reference to "Ed Broadbent's 7 Point Plan" who's 4th point is:

4: Electoral reform - Introduce PR.

Jim Bell, Green Party candidate, was also enthusiastic and supportive of PR.

I plan to attend more meetings. I could use more brochures. I paid for the other brochures and have approx. 50 left. I can get more printed but if you can get 100-200 to me I will get them into peoples hands.

Thanks

Luc Leger

Hi Larry and Wayne

Our first all-candidates' meeting in Haldimand - Norfolk riding was held last night and managed to spark some excitement, with a verbal sparring match between Diane Finley, Conservative Agriculture Critic and former Lib Agriculture Minister Bob Speller. I met Graeme Dunn who was also delivering FVC brochures there.

In response to my question "If you are elected by 32% of Haldimand - Norfolk voters, how will you make sure that the different values and points of view of the 68% who did not vote for you are represented in parliament?", Finley and Speller gave the trite and tired reply that they will visit all parts of the riding and listen to everyone. I was very heartened to see the NDP's Roberts pick up on the implied dysfunction of the system, and she pointed out her party's commitment to PR, as did the Christian Heritage Party's Elgersma and the Green Party's van Nort.

There are two more all-candidates' meetings next week. I'll be there with new questions. Will let you know how it goes.

Stephana Johnston

Subject: Update from Durham

Hi Larry, we have been busy here in Durham. We have attended at least one debate in each of the five ridings in Durham. We were able to ask questions at two of them and here are the answers we received.

Ajax-Pickering
Green Russel Korus - Supports PR (although he described a system that sounded like preferential voting)
NDP Kevin Modeste - Supports PR
CHP - Supports PR
Liberal Mark Holland - Supports a review. Talked about a lower voting age which has been one of his pet projects.
Conservative - Rondo Thomas - Was not there

Whitby-Oshawa
Green - Supports PR
NDP Maret Sadem-Thompson - Supports PR
Liberal Judi Longfield - Supports PR
Conservative - Jim Flaherty - Danced around the question and talked about an elected senate

Geoff Daw

I was at the debate in Ottawa-Orleans on Wednesday night.

The question that I asked was as follows: "I'm a member of Fair Vote Canada, which is a national movement fighting to improve our voting system so that for once we can get the government we actually vote for. In Monday night's leaders debate all the candidates supported reforming our election system. Mr. Harper said the current system has 'serious problems', and Mr. Martin admitted that it absolutely needs fixing. Yet, last year the government was supposed to begin a report on election reform. It didn't happen. In the next parliament, will your party publicly commit to immediately start the process of consulting Canadians, so that by the next election our votes will really count?"

Somewhat surprisingly, the Liberal (Godbout), Conservative (Galipeau) and NDP (Leahy) all said 'Yes'. Apart from making a commitment to examine reform, Godbout mentioned that the process had started and will continue; Galipeau blamed delays on Mauril Belanger (Liberal in Ottawa-Vanier and former Minister for Democratic Renewal); while Leahy expressed his full support for reform and as usual mentioned Ed Broadbent.

Some other notes:

- I found that a lot of people who were interested in reform really liked the the fold-out pamphlet. These brochures were also quite popular among NDP and Green supporters.

- We managed to place some fliers on most of the candidates' tables. After the debate, I spoke with a few Green and NDP party members about FVC. They were quite interested in having a FVCer come to a party meeting and give a presentation.

- I wasn't able to talk to some of the candidates to clarify our position on electoral reform (some seemed under the impression that we were pushing for pure PR). I'm planning to email them so that they better understand what FVC is trying to accomplish.

- In reference to the debate at Ottawa U, I found that while a number of students were not very interested in our handouts, many of the NDP and Green Youth were very enthusiastic about electoral reform. I agree that the problem with younger people is that they are less likely to know much about our current voting system, let alone alternatives. But, I think, that once they realize there's a problem, they become very interested in pushing for change.

Darryl, Ottawa

Well, the last week was a busy one for us, we attended six debates. On Wednesday we had five members at the Ajax-Pickering debate. Cara MacDonald was able to ask a question of the candidates. We received mostly favourable responses from all candidates although the conservative candidate was not present.

The Pickering-Scarborough East debate was right after the Ajax-Pickering debate and we handed out flyers at the start of the debate.

On Thursday morning we handed out several hundred of the electoral dysfunction flyers at the Oshawa GO station.

Thursday evening we again had five members at the Whitby-Oshawa and Oshawa debates. I was able to ask a question of the candidates. We received positive responses from all of the candidates except the Conservative candidate, Jim Flaherty, who waffled and talked about an elected senate. I was also interviewed after the debate by a local radio station.

We stayed for the Oshawa debate and handed out flyers. We had a member in the question line but she was not able to ask her question. In the closing remarks the Conservative candidate said not to waste your vote on a 4th place party (the Greens). Oshawa is a tight, three-way race, and the Greens took several thousand votes in the last election.

On Friday we had two members at another Whitby-Oshawa debate. They were not able to ask a question, but another audience member did ask a question on electoral reform and received the same response as in Thursday's debate.

This coming week we plan to distribute flyers at the Whitby GO station on Wednesday morning. On Thursday evening there is another all-candidates debate in Oshawa at G.L. Roberts Collegiate. This will be moderated by Michael Enright of the CBC and will be broadcast on Sunday morning on the Sunday Edition. We plan to be out in force!!!

That's all for now,

Geoff Daw
Fair Vote Canada Durham Region Chapter

Margo and I also attended the Whitby-Oshawa debate on Friday night. We had a table set up - just like the candidates - and handed out a lot of literature, but did not ask a question. Never mind, someone else in the audience, a young woman, got up and asked a question about electoral reform and each of the candidates answered in much the same way as they had on the Rogers cable debate. Glad there aren't many debates next week. Each of the candidates seem to have their lines rehearsed, so I've heard their speeches and answers to questions at least twice.

James McAllister

A question was asked at an All-Candidates meeting in Burlington on whether the candidates would support a fairer proportional representation system.

Candidate responses were as follows:

Mike Wallace, Conservative Candidate – is opposed to proportional representation.

Paddy Torsney, Liberal incumbent – is opposed to proportional representation – but might consider a mixed system if the “list MP’s had diminished roles?!?

David Laird, NDP Candidate – supports PR – especially mixed system as proposed by NDP.

Rick Goldring, Green Party Candidate – supports PR

In other words, the two parties that are over-represented in our unfair first-past-the-post system are not interested in changing this system. Let’s hope for a minority!

Salut,
Doug Brown

Canada's false sense of division

2006-01-14T04:25:00.000-05:00

from the Winnipeg Free Press, View from the West

Fri Jan 13 2006

Trevor Harrison

THE current election is threatening once again to end in a stalemate. In doing so, it will highlight a major failure of Canada's institutions.

With less than two weeks to go, the likely election result will be a House (of Commons) divided against itself, and a country that -- on the surface -- would appear equally and distressingly divided. How has this come about?

While the Conservatives talk of democratic reforms bearing on such things as an elected Senate and constituencies choosing their own candidates, the main obstacle to democratic participation -- and the main culprit dividing Canada and Canadians -- is our antiquated electoral system. Our current first-past-the-post system eliminates the subtleties of voter choice by forcing a "winner," always (it will be noted) the Conservatives or Liberals. In effect, the result is a kind of false positive regarding the acceptance of these dominant parties' platforms.

Worse, the current system reinforces the appearance of regional differences where none, or at least very little, actually exist. Consider the 2004 federal election results.

The Liberal party won nearly 44 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons with not quite 37 per cent of the votes cast. The Conservative party won 32 per cent of the seats with about 30 per cent of the votes. The Bloc won roughly 18 per cent of the seats with little more than 12 per cent of the votes. In short, each of these three parties was disproportionately rewarded in terms of seats compared to the number of votes they received. The New Democrats (only six per cent of the seats for almost 16 per cent of the votes) and the Greens were the big "losers." By contrast, an electoral system based on pure proportionality would have resulted roughly in the following seat distribution: Liberals, 113; Conservatives, 91; New Democrats, 48; Bloc Québécois, 38; the Greens, 13; and the "Other" about four seats, although in most jurisdictions with proportional systems, seats are not allotted to parties below the four per cent barrier.

The problem is bigger than just these numbers suggest, however. Under the current system, "natural" winning (if not governing) parties have been created in specific regions of the country -- notably, the Bloc in Quebec, the Liberals by and large in Ontario, and the Conservatives decidedly in Alberta. For a variety of reasons, the Liberals are most likely to continue winning the most seats across Canada, but with little representation (under the current system) in the Bloc and Conservative regions. In consequence, every time the Liberals win overall, these regions feel excluded from decision-making. This sense of not being represented is almost entirely an artifact of our archaic electoral system, however. While the Bloc cannot claim support in other regions, as it does not run outside Quebec, this is not the case for other parties.

For example, the Liberal party polled 22 per cent in Alberta in 2004; likewise, the Greens received over six per cent of the vote in that province, while, the Conservatives polled over 31 per cent in Ontario.

In changing our current electoral system to better reflect voter intentions, we might want to break with national proportionality to allow for proportional representation based on provincial boundaries.

In this instance, for example, Alberta's 28 seats in 2004 would have been distributed between the Conservatives (17), the Liberals (6), the New Democrats (3), and the Greens (2). After distributing the residual "other votes," Ontario's 106 seats would have been distributed between the Liberals (48), the Conservatives (34), the New Democrats (19), and the Greens (5).

Three immediate benefits would result from this change. First, voters' intentions would be better represented in the House of Commons. Second, compromise and debate would be encouraged. In consequence, the idea of coalition governments would become normalized in Canada, as in Europe, and not viewed as something to be feared and avoided at all costs. Third, the creeping (or galloping) seeds of regional alienation would be deprived of at least one source of nurture.

Successful political institutions create understanding and bridge differences. Canada's institutions no longer do this; indeed, they sow the seeds of division and mistrust. Whatever the outcome of the current election, we must begin immediately restructuring our institutions, starting with the current electoral system.

Trevor W. Harrison is a political sociologist at the University of Lethbridge and editor of the recently published, The Return of the Trojan Horse: Alberta and the New World (Dis)Order.

Fair vote gets thumbs up from federal candidates

2006-01-14T04:16:00.000-05:00

from NorthumberlandNews.com

Jan 13, 2006

NORTHUMBERLAND - All four Northumberland-Quinte West candidates in this month's federal election are prepared to seriously consider Canada adopting a new voting system, although they do not all agree on how it should be chosen or what it should look like. Fair Vote Canada's Northumberland Chapter asked the candidates a series of questions on the new system to get their point of view on proportional representation (the number of seats that parties' voters win in Parliament should match their votes cast). The following are their answers:

Question: In last year's election the Bloc Quebecois won only 48.9 per cent of Quebec votes, but got 54 of Quebec's 75 seats (72 per cent) rather than the 37 seats their popular support warranted. Do you want this to happen again, should Canada consider adopting a new voting system so that every vote cast will be represented in Parliament?

Paul Macklin, Liberal: Yes, conditionally. With respect to proportional representation, provided that we can find an appropriate model that can be pragmatically implemented in our Parliamentary system, I am prepared to seriously consider proportional representation in whole or in part.

Rick Norlock, Conservative: I support a made-in-Canada solution to low voter turnout. If the "first past the post" system is the root cause of low voter turnout, we must then look at all our democratic options such as proportional representation.

Russ Christianson, New Democrat: Yes, Canada needs proportional representation.

Pat Lawson, Green: Yes, Canada should consider adopting a new voting system so that every vote cast will be represented in Parliament.

Question: Do you personally support an independent, citizen-led process to allow Canadians to choose a fair voting system?"

Mr. Norlock said yes adding "but the citizen-led process must be made up of a genuine cross section of the Canadian population." Mr. Christianson and Ms. Lawson also said yes. Mr. Macklin preferred not to commit himself on this one.

Question: Do you personally support the principle that all voters are equal, no vote will be wasted, and every citizen will have a fair and equal voice?"

Mr. Christianson, Mr. Norlock and Ms. Lawson each said yes while Mr. Macklin declined to answer.

The executive of Fair Vote Canada's local chapter includes active supporters of all four parties as well as two non-partisan members.

We didn't make this up

2006-01-12T15:57:00.000-05:00

As we get down to the short strokes on this election campaign and the stench of fear and desperation begins to fill the air, the negative advertising is reaching a fever pitch.

Most of the attention is on the Liberal Ad That Never Ran, but of course the Conservatives have been running negative ads all along.

Negative advertising has become an issue of its own, with the most electrifying moment of the debates being the Duffy on Duffy post-debate confrontation, and the Liberal ads have spawned hilarious parodies in blogspace.

Negative advertising is terribly destructive, and a threat to democracy. The purpose of negative ads is not to attract votes, but to drive away the other guy's voters, and to discourage people from voting at all. It is a major contributor to the cynicism and apathy that permeate our politics, and the feeling that "They're all the same, they can't be trusted, they're all liars, they're all crooks."

What is not commonly understood is how all this is conditioned by our current, winner-take-all voting system. Our current system generates a few winners and a lot of losers. Indeed, it makes losers of most of us, because most of us vote for candidates who do not get elected, and so we end up with a government that most of us didn't vote for. (Excuse me, have I said this before?)

The object of the current game is to get 40% of the votes so you can get 60% of the seats and 100% of the power. There is no incentive to be reasonable, to negotiate, or to compromise. Every party takes the stance that "Everything we say is right, and everything they say is wrong." Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

This kind of attitude and environment keeps a lot of reasonable people out of the political arena, and particularly women.

Proportional representation, on the other hand, tends to generate coalition governments. The sharing of power tends to lower the level of frustration and testosterone. It also means that politicians have to tone down their rhetoric a bit. It's dangerous to call somebody the devil's spawn when you might have to make a deal with them next week. It's not just about getting along with each other, but also about appearing consistent in the eyes of the public and the media.

Arend Lijphart is a distinguished political scientist who has done a comparative study of democracy in 36 countries, with particular emphasis on the effect of different voting systems on political culture and social policy outcomes. A summary of his work is available on the Fair Vote Canada website.

Lijphart divides countries and societies into "majoritarian" and "consensual" democracies. The "majoritarian" democracies are those that use winner-take-all voting systems such as ours. The "consensual" democracies are those that use proportional voting systems.

Lijphart notes that the majoritarian model concentrates political power in the hands of a bare majority or a smaller plurality. The resulting political system will tend to be “exclusive, competitive, and adversarial”. The democratic institutions in the consensus model force broader participation in government and broader agreement on government policies. These political systems tend to be “characterized by inclusiveness, bargaining, and compromise…”.

He also notes that countries with proportional voting systems tend to have greater voter satisfaction with governments and politicians. They elect more women and minorities. They get (in general and on average) higher voter turnout. They have good economic performance and superior environmental policies.

Contrary to the fear-mongering claims of apologists for the status quo, the facts show that proportional representation tends to generate stable, effective government, and a more civilized political climate.

What are we waiting for?

For Pete's sake

2006-01-11T09:43:00.000-05:00

At an all-candidates in Peterborough last night the need for electoral reform and a move to some form of PR came up several times in the course of the opening presentations by the NDP and Green candidates and was well applauded by a large attendance.

A specific question about the issue was asked by the man in the seat in front of me (a non FVC member to whom I later gave material and a membership form) and again the positive answers from ALL candidates except the Conservative drew good applause. This to me shows how far the issue has come in the political arena and also in the public consciousness, relative to the last election.

Another FVC member and I handed out literature to folks on the way out, a few of whom stopped to chat about the issue.

For pete's sake
Mark Finnan

Mark Finnan is a Fair Vote Canada organizer in the Peterborough, Ontario area.

Greetings from the Durham Chapter

2006-01-11T09:33:00.000-05:00

Hi Wayne and greetings from the Durham Chapter.

We have been busy over the last couple of weeks covering the 5 ridings in the Durham region - Pickering-Scarborough East, Ajax-Pickering, Oshawa-Whitby, Oshawa and Durham.

Last week we handed out flyers at an all candidates meeting for the Oshawa riding during the debate on the auto industry. We also attended an all candidates debate for the Durham riding. This went particularly well and we received solid support from the NDP, Green and Liberal candidates. In fact, in his closing statement the Liberal candidate held up one of our flyers and urged everyone to read it, to support Fair Vote Canada and that he fully supported a change to a fairer voting system. We were quite pleased and felt it was a great coup.

On Monday night one of our members attended a debate in Port Perry with representatives from all the Durham ridings. She handed out flyers and talked to as many candidates as she could. She reported that she received many supportive comments.

Last night we attended a meeting in Pickering for the both the Ajax-Pickering and Pickering-Scarborough East ridings. We distributed several hundred flyers and had many people say that they want voting reform.

Tonight we are back in Pickering for the televised all candidates debate for the Ajax-Pickering and Pickering-Scarborough east ridings. There will be four of us there handing out flyers, talking to the candidates and submitting questions. We think it will be another successful night and a great opportunity.

Tomorrow we will start the day distributing flyers at the Oshawa GO station and then attending the televised all candidates debates for both the Oshawa-Whitby and Oshawa ridings. We hope to have 3 or 4 volunteers there distributing flyers and submitting questions.

On Friday we will be attending another all candidates debate for the Oshawa-Whitby riding.

Next week we have a number of events that we will be attending. I will send you an update next week.

That's all for now from the Durham chapter,

Geoff Daw

Geoff Daw is Chair of the Fair Vote Canada Durham Chapter. Durham is the area east of Toronto.

Would you like fries with that?

2006-01-11T09:28:00.000-05:00

Better have a snack before you go to the polls.

One of the frequently asked questions of Elections Canada is: "Is someone allowed to eat a ballot?"

Surprisingly, this is a valid and important question, according to the organization. On its website it says, "Eating a ballot, not returning it or otherwise destroying or defacing it constitutes a serious breach of the Canada Elections Act."

Electoral Dysfunction: There is a cure.

2006-01-11T08:06:00.000-05:00

Millions of Canadians suffer from electoral dysfunction, a serious condition when untreated. You probably know the symptoms. You cast your vote in every election, but frequently you fail. Your vote elects no one.

But there is a cure!

Fair Vote Canada has released a two-minute video at www.fairvote.ca starring Don Ferguson of CBC-TV’s Royal Canadian Air Farce and directed by videographer Henry Sansom. With the help of a skeleton, a garden claw, a handy chart and a very memorable photo of the Peace Tower, “Doctor” Ferguson explains how a “good dose of proportional representation” will solve the problem.

Fair Vote Canada is a multi-partisan citizens’ campaign promoting the adoption of a more proportional voting system. FVC promotes the use of a citizen-driven electoral reform process allowing voters to choose the best system through a binding national referendum.

Web visitors are encouraged to sign our petition, which is also being endorsed by a growing list of prominent Canadians from a wide variety of backgrounds and political viewpoints.

Rick Mercer reveals Conservative cabinet

2006-01-11T02:36:00.000-05:00

For humourous election coverage, and Lord knows we need some humour in this campaign, check out Rick Mercer's blog at www.rickmercer.com.

Sandra MacKay

Might as well laugh 'cuz it doesn't help to cry

Wayne

(Sandra MacKay is a Fair Vote Canada organizer in Ontario.)

I'm going to join up with Fair Vote Canada right now.

2006-01-11T01:50:00.000-05:00

From: Trevor Smith
To: Wayne@FairVote.Ca
Subject: electoral reform

Hello!

I came across your blog the other day and subsequently the fair vote website, and am I ever happy to see people advocating this. I'm going to join up with fair vote right now.

I took an interest in this after the last election while talking to a friend in Ireland who made a comment about how sad it was Canada still used first past the post, which got everything rolling for me.

So I did a bunch of research and started writing, and came up with a sizeable and I hope fairly comprehensive essay on the subject. I notice you said on your blog you don't advocate any specific alternative but I really think that if you're going to critique something, people want concrete plans for an alternative and why it's
better, and that's what I lay out.

I'm going to attach it, I just finished it a few weeks ago and it hasn't been edited. Any feedback you're willing to provide would be great.

I also have an extremely condensed version of it on my blog with my comments on the support of electoral reform by the major parties as well if you want to read that too, it's at

http://cecomment.blogspot.com

Thanks a lot,
Trevor Smith

Trevor;

Thanks for showing me your essay, and thanks for your support for Fair Vote Canada and for fair voting reform!

You can sign up online at www.FairVote.Ca, sign our petition, and make a donation.

I've had a brief look at your essay, and find it well thought out and presented. It certainly is "sizable and comprehensive", which unfortunately will make it hard to get people to read it. The version on your blog is more manageable.

I hope the following comments will be helpful.

"Let's face it; the Canadian electoral system is unfair, unrepresentative, and extremely antiquated. This is painfully clear to anyone who isn't a supporter of the Liberals or the Conservatives."

True enough, but the fact is that supporters of all parties are badly served by our current voting system because of the regional distortions. In fact, most wasted votes are cast for Liberals and Conservatives. Fair Vote Canada puts a great deal of care into avoiding casting voting reform as a 'small party' issue, or an issue that is all about what is good for any particular party.

"While it is important to provide a voice for people living in sparsely populated and rural areas, it doesn't seem fair that a riding with less than 20,000 eligible voters (Labrador) will have one MP, the same as a densely populated riding like West Vancouver/Sunshine Coast which has nearly five times the population. This essentially means each vote in Labrador counts as five votes in the overall electing of a government. In fact the second place finisher for West Vancouver in 2004 got more votes than there were eligible voters in all of Labrador, yet he doesn't get a seat."

This is, strictly speaking, a separate issue, although related. There are good reasons why we give extra representation to rural voters, and to the smaller provinces, and we will no doubt continue to do so under whatever system we finally adopt for Canada. There is no evidence that the PEI tail is wagging the Canadian dog.

However, PR will tend to equalize power between voters. Moreover, that fact that parties are represented in proportion to the votes they receive reduces the significance of the fact that some MPs represent more voters than others, and conversely that some voters are harder to represent for geographic reasons. This means, and it is a subtle point, that we will have much more flexibility in designing ridings, and can do a better job of making them comprise real geographic communities. This is especially true if the system we choose has multi-member ridings.

"Since FPTP is winner take all, coming second, even if by 1 vote, is the same as coming last, even if you only get one vote. Because of this, it's better for a party to concentrate their campaigning to their support base and make sure they win in the ridings they are strongest in, rather than spreading out and trying to get everyone in the country to vote for them."

Actually, it's worse than that. Parties pay no attention to the areas they are sure to lose, and not much more to the areas they are sure to win. All the money and attention goes to swing voters in swing ridings. I think somebody did a comedy sketch about that, where it turned out that the entire election hinged on the decision of one couple who couldn't make up their minds.

"An even more extreme example of punishing parties with broad national appeal is the 2000 election. The Liberals received 40.8% of the popular vote but ended up with a huge majority of 57.1% of the seats in parliament. The NDP managed 8.5% of the popular vote and ended up with 13 seats, or 4.3% of parliament. Now what's really interesting in this election was the Progressive Conservative Party. They got 12.2% of the popular vote, a fair bit more than the NDP, but only ended up with 12 seats in parliament, 1 less than the NDP. The reason for this was primarily the strength of the Canadian Alliance in Western Canada. The Canadian Alliance completely eroded PC support by focusing on more western issues, while the PC party maintained a national focus. The Progressive Conservatives ended up with a 205% penalty in translating popular vote to seats."

The worst example of all is the 1993 election, where the PC Party got almost the same number of votes as the Reform Party, but won only two seats, compared to the Reform Party's 52. But the Bloc Québecois got 54 seats and formed Her Majesty's 'Loyal' Opposition, although they finished in fourth place in terms of votes!

That's about all I've got time for right now, but I notice you don't seem to have touched on another major problem, which is that FPTP discourages diversity in candidate nomination and thus discriminates against women and minorities.

Much of your paper seems devoted to your own reform proposal. Fair Vote Canada doesn't get into designing or endorsing voting systems, which we feel is the job of the Citizens' Assembly or other citizen-driven process we end up with. When we get such a process, no doubt you'll want to make a submission. When you do, I encourage you to strive for brevity and clarity.

You've obviously put a lot of time and thought into this, and I encourage you to continue your reading. You'll find lots of good info, and links to much more, on our website.

Meanwhile, let's spread the word! We won't get a fair voting system until the people demand it.

Wayne Smith, President
Fair Vote Canada

Martin lies blatantly

2006-01-10T12:43:00.000-05:00

by Wilf Day

In the leaders' debate last night, Paul Martin said, about a fair voting system: "we've already set up a Commission that will be reporting in the spring that is really taking a look at how this can be done." Jack Layton replied "you dragged your feet."

What Commission? Who will report in the spring?

On June 16 a Parliamentary Committee unanimously recommended "the following process:

1. That the government launch a process of democratic and electoral reform to begin no later than October 1, 2005 and to be completed by February 28, 2006;

2. That the process involve a special committee of the House of Commons, and a citizens’ consultation group";

and so on

"7. That the special committee and the citizens’ consultation group hold a joint session in mid-November, at which time they would share their preliminary findings;

10. That the special committee table its report in the House of Commons no later than February 28, 2006. After taking into account the report of the citizens’ consultation group, it would make recommendations on Canada’s democratic and electoral systems."

This process was familiar to, at least, the Quebec members of the Committee. Quebec’s proportional representation plan is the subject of a similar process that began Nov. 1, 2005, and will get into high gear right after January 23 with hearings across Quebec, by a Special Committee of nine MNAs and a Citizens‘ Committee of eight.

So on June 17th Ed Broadbent politely asked the Minister in the House:

"The minister knows full well that if the citizens engagement group and the parliamentary committee are to get under way early in September, preparatory work will have to be done starting as early as in the next few weeks, especially for the citizens engagement process. Will he assure the House that this work will be undertaken in the next few weeks so that the committees can start their work early in the fall?"

And the Minister in charge, Mauril Bélanger, said "In the spirit of that report, the answer is yes."

But they didn’t.

They not only stalled. They turned the process into a $900,000 year-long public opinion survey, with focus groups called one-day workshops to talk about democratic values

All they did last fall was call for tenders:
Category: "OMNIBUS SURVEYS - PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH RELATED."

"Bidders MUST demonstrate their ability to complete the project to draft report stage by October 13, 2006."

"The Contractor shall provide eleven deliberative workshops that are each one-day in length. There will be a workshop in each of the ten provinces as well as one for the three territories. The Contractor will propose a sampling strategy to ensure, within the project budget, that the participants are as representative of the wider adult Canadian population as possible."

Members of the BC Citizens Assembly spent 10 months on weekends. The Quebec Citizens Committee will spend five solid weeks on hearings, then deliberate.

The federal process that Ed Broadbent built has turned into a one-year stall to hold one day workshops. Sad.

Last night's debate transcript:

Jack Layton: I think a lot of Canadians find these personal issues quite distressing, and I do believe there are some solutions though, and I hope we get a chance to talk about them when it comes to democracy and accountability and respect in Parliament. I think a big part of it has to do frankly with having more women in Parliament. I think the whole tone of the debate would change. I'm very proud of our party for having 108 women candidates, 36 per cent of our candidates. We've got a long way to go. Proportional representation would take us there. I urge people to choose that option and clean this up.

Moderator asks Gilles Duceppe: As you know, voter turnout has been decreasing for several elections in a row, maybe because people think their votes don't count anymore. There seems to be an increasing appetite in the country for an electoral system that takes popular vote into account, maybe proportional representation, maybe something else. In the last election your party won less than 50% of the vote in Quebec but it took more than 70% of the seats. Do you think this is fair?

Gilles Duceppe: I think that was the situation with most of the government most of the time. The Liberals were elected, I remember, in 1993 with 38 per cent of the vote with a huge majority in the House. This is how our system is working. I mean, there is certainly a problem, but the fact is that if we're representing Quebecers in Ottawa, it is certainly because Quebecers have good reasons to choose members from the Bloc. We won the election in '93, in '97, in 2000, in 2004, and I'm very optimistic, even though I don't take anything for granted, that we'll finish first this time around. Why is it so? It's because the other parties have nothing to offer concretely to Quebecers, and I mean, we're working with the system. I mean, we're not the one who invented that system. The same situation for all parties, for all parties.

Moderator: Mr. Martin, do you think the current system of electing members is fair?

Paul Martin: Well, we've already set up a commission that will be reporting in the spring that is really taking a look at how this can be done, and I think that it's very important. There are a number of very important experiments that are going on in the provinces. British Columbia is an example, Ontario is looking, and I believe that we can learn a great deal from this. There is no doubt that people are turned off by politics. There have to be structural changes, but I've got to say that I think that the lack of civility, the lack of intelligent debate, what happens in Question Period really does turn Canadians off, and I think that we have got to really set a much higher example and I think it should be done by the leaders. I also share the view that was said by Mr. Layton earlier. I believe we need far more women in politics. I think that they bring a wealth of experience that would be very important, that would certainly, I think, play well in the way that the House of Commons deals with major issues and government does, but do I think the current system needs fixing? Yes, I absolutely do.

Stephen Harper: Our platform doesn't have a commitment to change the electoral system, although I will say that we co-sponsored with the other opposition parties the study that's looking into that. I have written in the past about some of the obvious unfairness and some of the problems that are created by our electoral system. They are serious problems . . . .

Jack Layton: I have to say I'm disappointed in what I've heard from the other party leaders on electoral reform. You know, Canadians want their electoral system fixed. I think they're sending us a very strong message as you intimated, Steve, in your question, by the reduction in turnout. They don't hear their voices in the debate. They don't see their voices represented in the results, either electorally or in the policies affecting their lives. And this system was invented before the telephone, for heaven's sakes. I remember, Mr. Martin, we talked when you were writing your speech from the throne and I asked you to include electoral reform in that speech. You put the words in, but I have to say, you haven't followed through. We were supposed to have had a report from a parliamentary commission already in front of us so Canadians could be discussing this, and you dragged your feet. This is a major priority. It will mean that more women get elected, more immigrants will get elected. We'll have more aboriginals in the House of Commons. This can increase voter turnout. It does all over the world. Let's make that change in Canada now.

Moderator: Mr. Duceppe, you're entitled today a 30-second rebuttal if you want.
Gilles Duceppe: I remember the last campaign when Mr. Martin was talking about the democratic deficit. Exactly what we've seen in the House in the last month, a lot of decisions were taken by committee in majority, and the government refused to apply them. Motions were decided and vote the in majority in the house, and the government refused to apply them. When Paul Martin is talking about the democratic deficit, I think he's a living democratic deficit.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060109/ELXN_debate_transcript_060109/20060109/

CTV also has this exchange live. Click on the video to the right: CTV News: Leaders answer questions about electoral reform 4:52 I have added the parts omitted from their transcript.

Wilf Day is on the National Council of Fair Vote Canada.

'Nightmare' scenario dooms us to minority rule

2006-01-10T01:30:00.000-05:00

This article by Doug Fischer in the Ottawa Citizen is quite simply the best article I have read in a newspaper about fair voting reform.

Doug Fischer, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, January 09, 2006

If the federal election had been held last week, Canada's next Parliament would look like this: Conservatives, 113 seats; Liberals, 109; Bloc Quebecois, 60; and the New Democrats, 26.

The scenario is based on a detailed analysis of the voting intentions of more than 4,000 Canadians taken from four polls conducted late last year and in early 2006.

It requires only a quick look at the seat distribution to see the obvious: no easy coalitions that add up to a majority, a powerful group of MPs intent on ensuring Canada doesn't work, and an even more dysfunctional Parliament than the one that dissolved last fall after 18 months of mostly unproductive political wrangling.

"A nightmare is what it would be," says Barry Kay, the Wilfrid Laurier University political scientist who came up with the seat projections by blending polls done by Ipsos Reid, Decima, the Strategic Council and SES. "You could expect gridlock and the likelihood of another election within a year."

The picture could be very different.

Canada remains one of only three major western democracies (along with Britain and the U.S.) still using a winner-take-all voting system that frequently overrepresents the winning political party and underrepresents, or even eliminates, the others.

The vast majority of democracies elect their governments using some form of proportional representation, systems designed to ensure that a political party gets roughly the same percentage of seats as votes

It would prevent situations such as, for example, the majority Jean Chretien's Liberals won with only 38 per cent of the popular vote in 1997.

The idea of PR, as it's often known, is to make every vote count. Under the current system, commonly called first-past-the-post for its resemblance to a horse race, a candidate running against three or four rivals, for instance, could win with a third of the vote. The ballots of the other two-thirds count for nothing, and those voters might just as well have stayed home.

Spread across the country, that means a party can win a majority government with less than half -- even with less than 40 per cent -- of the votes. In fact, since 1980, Canada has experienced only one "true" majority government, the Brian Mulroney landslide of 1984.

Under most systems of PR, however, the candidate with the most votes is still elected, but the rest of the votes are distributed proportionally to other at-large or regional candidates placed by the parties on lists so the final seat count resembles the popular vote.

To see the difference, if a simple form of PR is applied to the popular vote in the same polls cited above (Liberals, 33 per cent; Conservatives, 32; NDP, 16; Bloc, 13; Greens, 6), Parliament would be made up of 101 Liberals, 100 Conservatives, 49 New Democrats, 40 Bloc MPs and 18 Greens.

At the top end, the scenario doesn't appear much different. The Liberal and Conservative seat counts remain close, although they each have roughly 10 fewer MPs than they would under the current system. However, a different picture emerges for the smaller parties, as it frequently does under PR. The NDP's representation is up by 23 seats, the Greens move from no seats to 18 and Bloc loses nine MPs.

In reality, say electoral experts, support for the NDP and Greens would likely be even higher if PR was used in an actual election. Research shows that voters who believe it's futile to support a small party under the current system would likely reconsider that view once they realize the seat allotment reflects the popular vote.

Conversely, the experts say, the Bloc Quebecois could expect even lower support in an actual election. Surveys suggest 15 to 20 per cent of the Bloc's support comes from disaffected federalists who can't bring themselves to support the Liberals, but don't see much point in supporting parties -- the Tories and NDP -- with little chance of winning in Quebec. Those "protest" voters would likely shift their support under PR.

The biggest difference between the two scenarios is the workability of Parliament under PR, says political scientist Brian Tanguay, the author of the Law Commission of Canada's exhaustive 2004 report recommending a federal PR system.

As long as Bloc MPs wield so much power, and no combination of seats making a Liberal or Conservative majority can be worked out without them, Parliament is doomed to paralysis, he says. The PR scenario, on the other hand, offers several options for coalitions, casual or formal, that would help Parliament survive for a longer period, and probably even result in good legislation.

A common criticism of PR is the belief it leads to a proliferation of small parties capable of hijacking legislation. That's true to some extent, Mr. Tanguay concedes, but the distortions created by the first-past-the-post system are much more frequent. And they offer the potential for bigger trouble.

"Look at the Bloc," Mr. Tanguay says. "The status quo really gives them a free ride. It's not only a perversion of democracy, it puts a serious damper on any move to fix the perversion."

The facts bear him out. In the 2004 election, the Bloc sent one MP to the House of Commons for every 31,000 votes cast for the party. The NDP, on the other hand, required 111,000 votes to elect each of its MPs and the Green party sent no one to Parliament despite receiving nearly 600,000 votes.

The Bloc's exaggerated clout makes Parliament very difficult to operate in a minority situation; none of the other parties can be seen working too closely with separatists. And any effort to lessen it through a system of PR would likely be portrayed in Quebec as an attempt to weaken the province.

"Who wants to take that one on?" Mr. Tanguay says. "I don't see the Liberals or Conservatives touching it."

Of course, more than concern about antagonizing Quebec is keeping the Liberals and Conservatives from pushing electoral reform.

Although it's not likely to happen this time, both parties know that only the current system gives them any chance of forming a majority government.

And so on. The article started on the front page of the Citizen, and continued on into the paper.

Global moment

2006-01-10T01:21:00.000-05:00

I saw you on the Global TV debate analysis segment at the Longest Yard.
Unfortunately, only half of the maple leaf on your Fair Vote T-shirt was on
camera, so Fair Vote Canada didn't show up. So next time you are on TV,
you'll have to watch those camera lines.

Joking aside, I was very pleased to hear the word proportional
representation very early in the debate. Also the question that was asked
to Gilles Duceppe about the fairness of his party getting so many seats,
when the proportions didn't warrant that number of seats.

One of our members shared the concern that if the tories get in power, that
our momentum might slow down. What do you think?

Good to see you spreading the word!!!

Bronwen

Several FVC members were also interviewed by CBC Radio at the same pub.

Either we get a government we can work with, or we get new horror stories to tell. Or both.

Either way, we've got the big MO!

Wayne

(Bronwen Bruch is an Executive member of the Fair Vote Canada Halton Chapter in southern Ontario.)

Meet and greet

2006-01-10T01:18:00.000-05:00

Greetings all,

The meet and greet for the North York ridings went quite well. I was able to speak with about half a dozen candidates or their representatives (focusing mostly on the Liberals and Conservatives, since their support for PR is not as strong as the NDP and Greens), and in general was well-received. A couple were concerned about the details, one Conservative was worried about the process of candidate nominations and the possibility of "party cronies" being shunted in easier through a PR system. Some campaign workers admitted to not knowing their candidate's position on the issue.

I also handed out flyers to residents attending the event, and even somehow managed to get interviewed and my picture taken by reporters from the North York Mirror (one of the community newspapers). I don't get that paper, so If anybody does keep your eye out (and if I am in it, can you save a copy for me?). Hopefully my comments about Fair Vote make it in.

Just a reminder, I plan to hand out flyers tomorrow (Tuesday) at Bloor-Yonge station from about 4:30-5:30.

Best,

Brian Hoessler

A matter of trust

2006-01-10T00:57:00.000-05:00

In an article yesterday in the Winnipeg Free Press by Mary Agnes Welch, Liberal Senator Pat Carstairs was quoted as saying we need to explore "some form of proportional representation".

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscriber/breakingnews/story/3251373p-3764309c.html

Senator Sharon Carstairs, the matriarch of Manitoba's Liberal party and one of the most well-respected politicians in the province, is quick to mount a passionate defence of hard-working politicians who get a bad rap, in part because they're stuck in a broken parliamentary system that breeds mistrust.

She is one of several senior politicians, including former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, who are calling for reform.

"We have record numbers in the Toronto Stock Exchange. We have record numbers in growth of our economy. We have people doing better at all levels," said Carstairs. "In the overall reflection of Canada, people should be incredibly upbeat. And we're not. So you sort of say, OK, why are we not?" Carstairs says it's time to take deepening levels of cynicism seriously and think hard about reforming Canada's electoral system, the way the House of Commons functions and the way parties work together. Question period, now often little more than one long yelling match, might be the first place to start.

"It was clear to me when young children would come to the Manitoba legislature and say 'We couldn't behave like that in our school!'. It's even worse in the federal level," said Carstairs, who led the Manitoba Liberal party in the late 1980s. "People say 'Who are they representing? Is this the kind of foolishness we expect from our parliamentarians?'"

She says Canada should consider adopting the British model where the opposition submits questions to the government beforehand in order to get real answers instead of endless rounds of one-upmanship and jabs.

Combating cynicism also requires Senate reform, electing more women to parliament and exploring some form of proportional representation. Carstairs said it's even worth looking at shortening weekly parliamentary sessions to four days to allow politicians to spend an extra day their home ridings, meeting with voters.

Also a news story in today's Toronto Star quoted Harper as saying electoral reform could be a point of discussion between a Conservative minority and the NDP "...although we haven't adopted any particular model."

CP asks leaders about PR

2006-01-09T00:22:00.000-05:00

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/asktheleaders.html

(CP) - Each week during the federal election campaign, The Canadian Press puts a question to the federal party leaders. This week's question:

"Should Canada move toward a system of proportional representation?"

The answers:

Paul Martin - Liberals

"The issue of electoral reform has been, and continues to be, on the government's agenda. Recently, the government introduced major changes to political financing and political party registration rules. These reforms are directed to greater openness, fairness, transparency and diversity in the Canadian electoral system.

At the same time, it is premature to seize upon any single solution to the challenges facing our democracy. We first need to identify the problems we wish to solve. We have announced a series of initiatives - including a citizen engagement process - to gain a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of our democratic institutions and practices.

We agreed with all parties to task the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to recommend a process for engaging Canadians and Parliamentarians in an examination of our electoral system. The election was forced upon us by the Opposition before the work could begin."

Stephen Harper - Conservatives

"A Conservative government will work with like-minded parties in the House of Commons to democratize Canada's parliamentary and electoral institutions. Among other democratic reform measures, this could include looking at changes to the electoral system to consider different models of proportional representation.

A Conservative government will also implement other democratic reforms such as fixed election dates every four years, and electing senators. We also feel that it is unfair that Canada's electoral system causes rapidly growing provinces like British Columbia to send fewer MPs to the House of Commons than is warranted by their populations and we would therefore seek to correct this problem while ensuring that no province sees its number of MPs decline.

In reviewing options for a more proportional electoral system, a Conservative government will not endorse any new system that would weaken the link between MPs and their ridings, create unmanageably large ridings, or that would strengthen the control of party machines over individual MPs."

Gilles Duceppe - Bloc Quebecois

No response received.

Jack Layton - New Democratic Party

"Yes, absolutely, and the NDP is alone among parties in saying we will bring proportional representation in. That's one big reason why this time, people who want to change politics should look at the third option - because unless people vote for the kind of change they want, they'll never get it.

As with so many things, Paul Martin has no credibility on changing politics. During the last Parliament, Liberals reneged on an all-party process led by NDP MP Ed Broadbent on voting reform. Martin will pretend to believe almost anything for a vote, but his record shows his words to be meaningless.

We need to change politics to a system that makes it easier to vote for good ideas, elects more women and fairly reflects diversity of opinions within regions. Already in place in the vast majority of democracies, a PR system that retains local representation is key to changing politics for good. Every vote for the NDP on Jan. 23 helps elect many more NDP MPs - and every new NDP MP will change politics for good."

Jim Harris - Green party

"Yes. Canada's democracy is ready to evolve, to become a fairer, more accountable and truly representative electoral system. The Green party believes that it's time to get past the first-past-the-post system and build a House of Commons that reflects Canada's diversity by electing more women, visible minorities and members of smaller parties to Parliament.

Proportional representation has been a key thrust of the Green party since its inception as an essential priority of democratic reform in order to give power back to the people. Since there are many options and variations, this change should be citizen-driven via a Citizens' Assembly and referendum.

Decentralized decision-making and participatory democracy are core principles of the Green party. Green party MPs will work to create a broad-based, result-driven public consultation process to determine the form of proportional representation that best serves Canadians for the next federal election. The Green party also supports the legislative changes required to introduce the proportional representation electoral system recommended by the public consultation. The need for urgent action on electoral reform is based on the recognition that our system adopted at the time of Confederation is now antiquated and undemocratic."

The House, CBC Radio One

2006-01-08T03:11:00.000-05:00

Outstanding discussion on voting reform this morning on The House, CBC Radio One with Ed Broadbent and Preston Manning!

If you slept in like me (after posting to my blog at 6:00 a.m.), you can still hear it online by going to the CBC website and clicking on "Listen to the latest program".

http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse/audio.html

All-candidates' debate, Toronto Centre

2006-01-07T06:00:00.000-05:00

I went to my first election debate last evening, in the riding of Toronto Centre. The incumbent is Defence Minister Bill Graham, who got 30,000 votes last time, more than double those of his nearest opponent, NDP Michael Shapcott, who nevertheless is back to try again.

I was nimble enough to get to the mike in time to ask a question. While standing in line, I had lots of time to consider my approach. This is the most downtown riding in the country, and the questions ahead of me were about transgendered and bisexual rights, gay marriage, gun violence, and racism.

My question went like this:

I am not a member of any political party. I am a member of an organization called Fair Vote Canada, which is a national citizens' movement to change our voting system so we can get the government we vote for, for a change. ( This drew applause, as it always does.)

It has already been mentioned tonight that the candidates do not reflect the diversity in the riding, and our Parliament does not reflect the diversity of our nation. We do not have enough visible minorities in Parliament. We do not have enough Aboriginal people. We have 21% women, a national disgrace. There are forty modern democracies that have more women in their legislatures than we do, and every one of them has a proportional voting system. (Well, almost. See my comment below.)

What I need to know from the candidates, and I need especially to hear from Mr. Reford (Conservative) and Mr. Graham (Liberal), is what your parties will do, and in particular what will you do personally to ensure that Canada gets a modern, proportional voting system that affords voters real choices, and will allow us to hold government accountable?

The Conservative danced around the question and talked about how they endeavour to achieve diversity in their nomination process while allowing the local constituency association to pick the candidate. He neglected to mention that they have only 11% women candidates.

Bill Graham allowed as how he was once opposed to proportional representation, but his wife has been on his case about improving representation of diversity. He has discovered the German system and now thinks that there may be ways to "solve the problems" associated with PR, so he is "willing to consider" changing the voting system.

After the meeting, I thanked him for agreeing to consider proportional representation. He passed me off to his wife, so I pointed out to her that our current system is endangering national unity because the balance of power is held by separatists, not because of the votes they receive, but because of the way the voting system works. I also pointed out that with a fair voting system we might be able to elect some Liberals in Alberta, and I told her that Jean Chretien had once said that if he were ever elected Prime Minister, the first thing he would do would be to bring in proportional representation, but it must have slipped his mind.

I also spoke to the Conservative candidate, a nice young fellow who had handled himself well in a tough room. I pointed out that it is conservative voters and conservative parties who are the chief victims of our current voting system, and I reminded him that Preston Manning got a quarter of the votes in Ontario, but couldn't elect anybody because of the way the voting system works.

He expressed concern at the enormity of the task of getting Canadians to endorse fundamental change, and I agreed that we have a huge job of education ahead of us because most Canadians still don't know that there are other ways to vote. I told him our message is that we have choices.

I also pointed out that if we had a proportional voting system, they would not have had to unite the right. The PC Party and the Reform Party could have remained separate and worked together in coalition governments. I explained that countries with proportional voting tend to have stable, effective coalition governments that represent a true majority of the voters and truly have the confidence of Parliament.

When he asked what system we were proposing, I told him that we weren't in the business of designing voting systems, and that what we were asking for was a process of public education and consultation leading to a referendum. He agreed that we should let the people decide.

The Green Party and Communist Party candidates also spoke well and mentioned PR in their opening remarks. Michael Shapcott for the NDP knows his stuff and spoke out for PR when asked.

There were several Fair Vote Canada volunteers in the room distributing our flyers. In all, there were several hundred people at the meeting, and a lot of them went home with Fair Vote Canada literature. I think we had a good evening.

PR Problems?

2006-01-03T21:51:00.000-05:00

A recent column in the Orangeville Citizen by Claire Hoy recycles much of the same old misinformation about proportional representation, and for that matter, about our current system.

http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2005/1229/Columns/021.html

"Critics - who don’t appear to understand how representative democracy actually works," says Hoy, "claim that if the representative of Party A is elected with, let’s say, 40 percent of the votes, the other 60 percent who voted for Parties B, C and D, are unrepresented. Therefore, they claim, we need a system where everybody’s votes are counted and seats are distributed according to the percentage of votes garnered.

"Well, that sounds plausible, but it’s not.

"For one thing, the winning candidate in the riding represents everybody there, not just those who voted for him or her. To say those who voted for somebody else aren’t 'represented' is complete hooey. Only an idiot – or somebody not wanting to ever get re-elected – would refuse to take calls from somebody who didn’t vote for him."

Well, sure, my local member is happy to see me, and he's a nice fellow, and like most - but not all - MPs, he certainly tries his best to represent "everybody there", but this is a hopeless task, not just in this large diverse urban riding, but anywhere in Canada.

In every riding in Canada, there are voters who are for, and voters who are against, tax cuts, same-sex marriage, the Kyoto Accord, the gun registry, abortion, and the death penalty, not to mention the legality of swingers' clubs and all the other important issues of the day.

Your local member will undoubtedly be happy to help you with your passport application, but how can she or he be said to 'represent' you politically if you voted for someone else?

Hoy goes on to describe what he calls the "overwhelming disadvantages" of proportional representation.

"Under p.r., for example, voters don’t even necessarily vote directly for their eventual 'representative'. These systems normally involve party hacks cobbling together a list of who will represent their party once the votes are tallied. Under our current system at least you know who, among a list of public options, will represent you."

Indeed.

In fact, most of us know before the votes are cast who will be our 'representative' after the votes are counted. The notion that the current system gives us the power to directly hire and fire our local member is farcical.

I live in Toronto, so my member is a Liberal. If you live in Calgary, your member is a Conservative. If you live in Chicoutimi, the Bloc speaks for you. How you or I decide to vote has nothing to do with the outcome of the election in most cases.

It is a wonder any of us bother to vote.

The notion that proportional lists will allow parties to appoint their cronies to Parliament is common, but nonsensical.

First of all, both types of system being discussed for Canada allow voters to continue to vote for individual local candidates.

But in any case, how do the parties select candidates for your riding now? Do they ask your opinion? Me neither. Sometimes they don't even ask their local constituency association. Is Mr. Hoy suggesting a worse system is possible? This horse is long gone from the barn.

Whether each party puts up a single candidate in a riding or a list of candidates in a region, the principle is the same. The party puts forth candidates, and you, as voter, get to pass judgement, not only on the calibre of the people on the list, but on how the list was put together.

Nobody on a party list gets elected unless people vote for the party, and there is no good reason to put anyone on the party's list of candidates except to get people to vote for the party.

Hoy is on more solid ground - for a while - when he talks about voter turnout.

"There really aren’t many good reasons, short of death, not to vote, a privilege many people are still denied and one we enjoy thanks to the many sacrifices of previous generations who fought, and often died, for it.

"But critics claim low voter turnout is proof we need a change, ignoring the fact that for much of our history, using the same system, turnouts were markedly higher year in and year out. In short, it’s not the system, it’s the politicians, stupid."

So, if politicians will stop acting like politicians, everything will be fine. We've just got ourselves a bad batch here, and if we only get some new ones in, we can get back to the normal situation where we're proud and happy with our politicians and our politics.

While conceding that the current crop of politicos may leave room for improvement, I am skeptical about solutions that rely on human nature to change.

And here comes the big one:

"While it’s true that governments can win a “majority” with a “minority” of the vote, the biggest flaw with p.r. systems is that they virtually guarantee perpetual minority governments. So what’s wrong with that, you ask? Well, what it means everywhere it is practiced is a proliferation of splinter political parties, frequent elections, and results which, since governing parties need to form coalitions to survive, afford the smaller, often more radical, parties way more power than the electorate meant to give them."

This is the most common criticism of proportional representation, but it is unsupported by the facts.

Leaving aside the fact that Canada has done very well under minority governments, the experience in the real world is that proportional voting systems don't produce 'minority' governments as we know them. This kind of chaos is a product of our current system.

Instead, the 80 or so modern democracies that have been using proportional voting for most of the last century - including all of the best-run countries in the world - generally have stable coalition governments that truly reflect the will of the voters.

They don't have elections much more frequently than we do, and small parties don't have "way more power than the electorate meant to give them" - they have power in proportion to the number of votes they receive.

"All we need is politicians who will keep their word," says Hoy. When will we see them?

Not until we get the government we vote for.

Not until we have a fair voting system.

Run for Parliament - No thanks!

2006-01-02T18:14:00.000-05:00

An excellent column by Janice Kennedy in Saturday's Ottawa Citizen speaks to our democratic malaise.

Unfortunately, the column is apparently not available online, so here it is. My comments are below.

Run for Parliament? No thanks

A few high-profile candidates from past campaigns are sitting it out this time around -- and they're fine with that

Janice Kennedy
The Ottawa Citizen

They are not on the hustings this time, thank you very much. And that's just the way they want it.

Past political adventures have left some former MPs and candidates bitter, exhausted, disillusioned, cautiously optimistic -- or all of the above.
But mostly they have left them wiser.

"Political parties are completely nontransparent and corrupt," says former Hamilton MP Sheila Copps with characteristic bluntness. And that's only one of the things wrong with the system.

At a time when "democratic deficit" has become a global catch phrase and "electoral reform" a cri du coeur, these politicians and would-be politicians bring an informed perspective and a hard-won credibility to the discussion.

"It's been a year of politics, instead of a year of governance," says outgoing Mississauga MP Carolyn Parrish of Canada's most recent minority Parliament, "a waste of everybody's time and money. If (Prime Minister Paul) Martin were serious about the democratic deficit, he would have brought in fixed terms."

"Before we start changing what legislators do," says Walter Robinson, unsuccessful 2004 Conservative candidate in Ottawa-Orleans, "we need to change how we actually put people in the House of Commons."

From autocratic leadership to incestuous party dynamics, from flawed models of representation to a lack of concrete support for women in politics, the perceptions of Ms. Parrish, Mr. Robinson and others ring with an authority born of experience.
Monia Mazigh also has a few ideas about what's wrong with the system and how it can be fixed.

"I was disappointed, yes," admits the NDP's star candidate for Ottawa South in 2004. "I was expecting more votes."

After it was all over that June evening, she had come in third with 8,000 votes, well behind Liberal David McGuinty's 25,900 and Conservative Alan Riddell's 20,600.
In a riding with a population that is 29-per-cent immigrant and 10-per-cent Muslim, Ms. Mazigh -- who is both -- failed to attract significant support from those communities.

Her high profile as the wife of Maher Arar, whose release from a Syrian prison she had lobbied for tirelessly, didn't provide much of a boost, either.

In the 18 months since, she has thought a great deal about her immersion into active politics. And when the Jan. 23 election was called, she had already decided she would not repeat the experience -- though not because of her disappointment.

"It was such a huge, tremendously demanding thing." The investment of time was overwhelming, she says, with such expected campaign activities as knocking on doors and participating in all-candidates debates combining with the demands of additional media attention from across the country.

She had asked her organizers to build a break into her campaign days so she could pick up her daughter from school and spend a little time with her daughter and toddler son, but the pressure was always tight.

"We hear from everywhere, 'We should have more women in Parliament.' But I don't think the system right now is ready to accept more women" -- at least women who want to have families. In her view, the demands of both campaigning and, worse, functioning as an MP make that a virtual impossibility.

These days, Ms. Mazigh, 35, puts her McGill doctorate in finance to good use as a policy researcher for the federal NDP. And even though her BlackBerry buzzes at odd hours outside the office, her life is framed by normal work days with normal office hours.

For Ms. Parrish, 59, there was no question of running again. Since becoming an independent MP last year after one too many outspoken comments as a member of the Liberal caucus, she has been unhappy in the House of Commons. The life of an independent, she says, is miserable, ineffectual and negative.

But she could not conceive of returning to the current incarnation of the Liberals, which, she says, suffers from serious leadership problems.

"It's no secret that I'm not happy with Paul Martin and the Scott Reids of the world," she says, referring to Mr. Martin's communications adviser of recent "beer and popcorn" notoriety. "He's surrounded himself with young Turks willing to drink the Kool-Aid for the leader."

She has become disillusioned with the party and what she calls "the cult of the leader," which she finds stifling and insupportable.

"It's not, 'Are you loyal?' It's 'How loyal are you? Will you drink the Kool-Aid?' "
Under former prime minister Jean Chretien, she says, Liberal caucus members had plenty of leeway to express themselves. His understanding reaction to her "bastards" episode, she says, was typical of the forgiving climate.

That 2003 incident, in which a boom microphone picked up her muttered reference to Americans in the context of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, she characterizes as the darkest moment of her political life.

"I'm outspoken and I'm colourful, but I'm not coarse. It was really embarrassing. For about three days, I hid under a blanket, and people brought me tea and chicken soup."

Stifling leadership was one of the things that drove Ms. Parrish away from federal politics. The other was the stifling climate on Parliament Hill generally.

"It dissuades emotional and passionate people. In Ottawa, people have to learn to curb their enthusiasm and passion, and that's not always a good thing. It's a weird place, especially for women."

Ms. Parrish says that most women who make it in politics have had to have a little extra fire and spirit to overcome the obstacles -- which they're then told to damp down. They have to change what they were, even though that's what got them there in the first place.

"To cope in Ottawa," she says, "you become grey."

For Ms. Copps, who essentially lost the 2004 Liberal candidacy in her long-held Hamilton riding to new boundaries and a candidate designated by the party brass, the systemic trouble is fundamental.

"It's a political party problem," she says, in a structure that has almost no oversight of parties other than financial audits. "They'll continue to play fast and loose with money and rules." She thinks Elections Canada should turn its attentions to how parties operate.

Ms. Copps charges that the Liberals are captives of lobbyists and other interest groups and "don't even pretend to be transparent anymore. There won't be a change in the ethos of the party until they're punished by the voters."

She finds ironic Mr. Martin's claims that he will address the country's democratic deficit. When Enron and the other corporate scandals splashed across the front pages, she says, there was a resounding call on the private sector for more accountability. "That hasn't happened in political life. It's the experienced people who don't want change."

At the same time, she adds, some good people do continue to enter political life -- she cites Michael Ignatieff as an example -- because they haven't yet learned how undemocratic the party apparatus is.

"The public's level of cynicism is higher now," says Ms. Copps, "but there are still some idealistic neophytes in politics."

Such idealism will be dulled with time, she suggests. Among current Liberal MPs, she claims, there is a much higher level of cynicism than there was in 1993, when the Chretien team came in fresh after years of Conservative rule.

"The party system is corrupt, and they know it," she says. They just feel kind of helpless about it.

Mr. Robinson, 39, understands that feeling of helplessness. In what had been a traditionally Liberal riding, he lost the 2004 race by 2,728 votes -- the detail is seared on his memory -- reducing the margin of Liberal victory from 25.5 per cent in the previous election to 4.7 per cent.

"2004 was the perfect confluence of events for me," he says, noting that his national profile as head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation was at its peak. "I thought my chances were excellent, and I did pretty well."

But the end result, despite endless, exhausting hours on the campaign trail, was still a loss. "The most disappointing thing for me was that, no matter how hard you work, you're still only a small part of the equation." The majority of votes are a function of national issues and party leadership.

"As much as I knew all that intellectually going in, it really hit hard afterward. You can not not take it personally, even though it's out of your control. Facing up to that reality was the hardest thing."

Mr. Robinson says he is committed to the objectives of Fair Vote Canada, a national non-partisan group lobbying for electoral reform. Among the aims of the group -- which boasts an advisory board that includes such diverse political personalities as Lincoln Alexander, Ed Broadbent, Judy Rebick and Hugh Segal -- are broader and fairer representation, accountability, some form of proportional representation and real voter choice.

Mr. Robinson says he would like to see the kind of voter reform that enables people to vote for someone or something, and not just against.

He chose not to run again this time around for several reasons. Professionally, he's just started a new job as an executive with a life sciences industry association, and he felt that if he took himself out of circulation now, he would be jeopardizing his earning potential. With a young son at home, he says, he has to think of education savings plans and mortgages.

And his boy, almost eight now, gave him another solid reason. During the 2004 campaign, he says, his son was sometimes disturbed by things he saw on his father's campaign signs or comments he heard at school.

"When I told him that I was not going to run this time, he gave me the biggest hug. Regardless of my angst, I knew then that this was the right thing to do. I'm still a card-carrying partisan, but this was not the right time for me."

Nor was it the right time for Ms. Mazigh.

"There was really only one big reason for me not to run now," says Ms. Mazigh. "My family."

As a result, she thinks the system should recognize in a concrete way the value of having more women in Parliament, including more women with families.

"If you have a supportive partner, that helps for sure. But on top of that, we need something institutionalized. In other countries, they have been able to get more women by providing some kind of day-care support."

Ms. Mazigh would like to see that, as well as other funding and perhaps university scholarships to attract more women to political life. "We have to encourage more young women, starting at university. We have to show them that the two choices, family and politics, can be compatible, can go together."

Despite the demands, Ms. Mazigh hopes to take another run at elected office some day, when her children are older. "I'm not disillusioned. I think it was a great experience, but I don't just want to run and use my name and not do the real job. It's a big responsibility, and I don't want to betray people who support me. But it was a very good experience, and I will probably repeat it another time in my life."

Taking another swing at it seems to be Mr. Robinson's position, too. "I'm a democrat before I'm a partisan, and, as the son of a veteran, I think it's a privilege to put your name on a ballot."

He says he'll start thinking politically again soon. "I gave myself 2004 to sulk and 2005 to be bitter. In 2006, I'm telling myself, 'Get your ass back in the game.' "

Ms. Copps, 53, won't be putting her name on a ballot any time soon. She's too busy enjoying a professional life that includes writing for the Sun Media chain, doing television work for French-language TVA and working on a series for The History Channel.

"It's lots of fun, it's free, it's liberating."

She doesn't rule out a return to political life some day, but that day is not in the foreseeable future.

As for Ms. Parrish, who has two young grandsons to dote on and a book offer from McClelland and Stewart to mull over, there will be no more political involvement at the federal level.

But that doesn't rule out the municipal. She'll make her decision after Jan. 23, but she says she'd love to throw her hat into the ring for Mississauga city council elections next November.

It's hard to get politics completely out of the bloodstream, says Mr. Robinson. He confesses to a longtime political addiction, kickstarted when, at age 13, he campaigned for Michael Wilson in Etobicoke. He and his wife met as Mulroney supporters. So no, he says, he has "absolutely not" ruled out the possibility of running again.

"2004 was a lesson learned," he says, chuckling. "I like to think of it as destiny deferred, not destiny denied."

Walter Robinson's comments, of course, relate directly to fair voting reform, and The Canadian Taxpayers' Federation has been a long-time supporter of Fair Vote Canada, but the other comments also reflect poorly on our current voting system.

The problems attracting women to politics in Canada have a lot to do with the cut-throat nature of the political game, and this is conditioned by our winner-take-all voting system. First-past-the-post voting divides us into a few winners and a lot of losers. Proportional voting means that power has to be shared, puts a premium on negotiation and compromise, and generates a more consensual and civilised style of politics. (Relatively speaking -- let's not kid ourselves here!)

Proportional representation also calls for a 'something-for-everyone' strategy for selecting candidates, and thus generates direct incentives for nominating more women.

Together, these reasons mostly account for the fact that virtually all of the forty or so countries that do better than Canada at electing women have proportional voting systems.

The "cult of the leader" is also directly related to the voting system. The single-party monopoly phony-majority governments usually generated by our current voting system make Parliament irrelevant and party discipline paramount.

Pierre Trudeau said that opposition MPs were nobodies 50 yards from Parliament Hill. The fact is, ordinary MPs are nobodies even on Parliament Hill, and the situation is even worse for government backbenchers than it is for opposition members, who at least get to speak out.

PR: Democracy you can really trust

2005-12-30T13:27:00.000-05:00

John Ibbitson, in an article in today's Globe, PR: Democracy you can really trust (subscriber only online), predicts that we will once again have a minority government, with the Bloc Québecois holding the balance of power and the NDP not, although the NDP will certainly get more votes that the Bloc.

This means that our unrepresentative voting system is actually creating "unstable Parliaments in which larger parties are held hostage to the agendas of smaller, special-interest parties, leading to repeated political crises and frequent elections." This is what the critics accuse proportional representation of doing, but in fact it is our current system which is preventing the formation of a stable government coalition.

"So it's time for opponents of proportional representation to explain themselves," says Ibbitson.

"The point is that aspiring prime ministers would have to put their coalition cabinets together before they met in Parliament, complete with manifestos and memorandums of agreement, rather than lurching from Throne Speech crisis to budget crisis to Gomery crisis to dissolution, which was the history of the 38th Parliament."

Well, exactly.

Ibbitson goes on to point out that, under our winner-take-all system, the Bloc could virtually sweep Québec with half the votes, making it impossible for either the Liberals or Conservatives to find elected Québec members to put into their cabinet. With a fair voting system, the 50% of Québeckers who vote for federalist parties would also be represented in Parliament.

CTV year-end review

2005-12-30T02:42:00.000-05:00

Jack Layton calls for voting reform in his year-end interview with Mike Duffy, video available on the CTV website at

CTV year-end review

Do Key New Democrats Really Want Fair Voting?

2005-12-29T20:54:00.000-05:00

By John Deverell

I was pleased to see NDP federal leader Jack Layton give a nod to PR this week in a chat with a CP newspaper reporter.

It would be more heartening to see Layton advocate effective voter equality and PR to national television audiences. As yet, and putting aside the shining eyes moment in Hamilton, there has been little indication that PR is important to the NDP 2006 campaign.

If voter equality and PR do not graduate from the long NDP wish list to a very short clutch of strong NDP campaign commitments, they will be a throwaway in any post-election NDP Parliamentary negotiating strategy.

The NDP's re-appointment of the retired Ed Broadbent as custodian of the fair vote file looks like an insulate-and-avoid stalling tactic as it was in the last Parliament.

If Broadbent allows himself to be sent into the next round of negotiations to a fair vote side table, without benefit of a deadline and program/ process ultimatum from the NDP, based on an explicit mandate from NDP voters, then the outcome is likely to be similar to Broadbent's last effort. Much Hill chat, no useful result.

The never-ending question for the federal NDP remains how to time and frame the defeat of a government, Liberal or other, in an unstable and dysfunctional Parliament. This is doubly difficult when the existing election rules offer little prospect of positive change or clarification.

Rarely has the need for voting reform been more compelling and urgent.

Surely a federal NDP leader could now promise, profitably, to show Canada and North America the way forward. We need to acknowledge, in law, that effective voter equality is the minimum test for democracy. It follows that proportional representation in the legislature is the necessary operating system.

Yet the NDP is keeping voter equality and PR hidden in the cupboard, reserved for serious use at some unspecified future time and place.

I infer that, as usual, the surprising federal NDP timidity in this matter has been determined mainly by the provincial NDP leaders in BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Fair voting is nowhere on their priority list. As in decades past they are prepared to sacrifice the federal NDP interest -- and the NDP provincial interest in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and the territories -- to preserve undemocratic voting in their provincial jurisdictions.

This contradiction has gone well beyond bad joke. The Parliament of Canada will remain dangerously dysfunctional so long as the Bloc Quebecois is popular and monstrously overrepresented and party public opinion remains badly misrepresented in every other region of the country. Federal voting reform has become necessary to the survival of an effective Canadian state.

It is time for Jack Layton as a national leader to insist, forcefully, that only fair voting and PR can give Canadians of every political persuasion an honest, practical, reliable way out of the continuing Parliamentary impasse.

A Canadian political party could make no greater contribution, to the country and the wider world, than to give democracy on this continent a more useful and functional definition.

Should the NDP then unleash in 2006, if it can and if necessary, another election -- a referendum election on voting reform?

Yes. And for the policy to be credible, more serious groundwork in public opinion should be done now.

This is why I hope voter equality and PR, with clear commitments and deadlines, will emerge as a major theme in the second half of the NDP campaign. I urge those of you who share the analysis and sentiment to raise this call in the necessary places.

More than ever, Canada needs democratic representative government. Make this the last unfair election.

John Deverell is Treasurer of Fair Vote Canada

Jack Layton calls for voting reform in his year-end interview with Mike Duffy, video available on the CTV website at

CTV year-end review

Wayne

Hey, feedback!

2005-12-22T14:03:00.000-05:00

The youth vote

though I've only had a few minutes to read over your /Wayne's blog--I'm heading out the door right now--I think the idea is funny and really good. My super-fast-teenage-kinda-internet-savvy constructive criticism, though, is this:

visually, the neon green and gray kind of clash, and the dark green doesn't really go with your fvc logo. Don't cast this aside as silly aesthetic superficial stuff; to me, when I'm reading, it actually makes a lot of difference. Also, the combination of gothic (Times New Roman) font with ...whatever the other one is--Verdana or something?-- is a bit distracting, especially because the FVC logo is in a totally different font. Maybe keep the "Democracy" and "Election Canada 2006--President's Blog" title the same font as the text? It would actually make a lot of difference in terms of how professional the site looks. Sorry if this is harsh, it's just a thought, and of course don't take offense because it has nothing to do with content!

Rakael Deverell

Only speak and ye shall receive! I wouldn't presume to argue with a sixteen-year-old on these matters. - Wayne

Hi Wayne, I'm running here in Oxford for the Marijuana Party

Just thought I'd tell you that you guys do a great job advancing the cause of fair and proportional representation.

I'd just like to add that the whole electoral process is such a scam. The appointed returning officers often have little related experience, and certainly are patronage appointments in all respects. Disgusting...

Anyways, thanks for producing such good information...I will go armed into my campaign with this, and hopefully, if anything, will help to make more people aware of the fragility of our democracy.

Jim Bender

Thanks for carrying the torch for fair voting! - Wayne

Dear FVC

I have been following the dialogue provided by the nice folks at Fair Vote Canada since joining the BC chapter following our last provincial election and would like to share my thoughts on electoral reform.

One of the biggest reasons I ran in the last provincial election was to sell the BC-STV electoral system created by BC's Citizens Assembly. Two people from each riding, one man and one woman, plus participation from our First Nations People.

I was quite proud of the fact that the riding I ran in finished with the fifth highest support in favour of electoral change. While it was disappointing that the referendum failed to meet the required "super majority" of sixty percent, I'm glad the BC Liberal Government is going to give the voters another chance in the fall of 2008.

My biggest reason for supporting electoral change comes from the work I have done over the years as an advocate for people with special needs and developmental disabilities.

It's no secret that the federal government and all provincial governments across this great country have reduced people with special needs to nothing more than second class citizens. I have read this in at least a half a dozen papers from various institutions and think tanks over the years and have no reason to dispute their findings. The inaction of government agencies provides enough proof.

I feel the only way we are ever going to demarginalize people who have special needs or those who are developmentally delayed is by changing the way we select the people who represent us. This will allow special interest groups to gain a stronger voice in our legislatures.

The best example I used in the last provincial election was the plight of the Green Party. Now I've never voted for the Greens even though I care a great deal about environmental issues, but the fact that this political organization goes out and in election after election garners a decent chunk of the popular vote, and never a seat to show for it, is distressing.

I don't expect the so-called mainstream political parties to discuss electoral reform during the 2006 federal campaign, only because it was front and centre as a referendum in our last provincial election and both the BC Liberals and NDP avoided any discussion on the issue. Why? Because it didn't serve their party's interests.

With voter turnout on the decline in election after election it seems obvious that something has to change in order to revive our democracy. I felt strongly that the Citizens Assembly was the solution to help rescue our democratic system and will continue to push their recommendations for BC-STV.

Jim McDermott
Victoria B.C.

Careful, Jim, "special interest groups" is a dirty word. But don't we all have special interests? And aren't the people who control our politics now "special interest groups" too? - Wayne

Harper & Quebec

I think that John Deverell's piece a couple of days ago does a disservice to both Stephen Harper and electoral reform. It ill serves electoral reform to introduce obvious political partisanship into a debate about a non-partisan program promoting democratic reforms. Does Mr. Deverell truly not remember Liz Frulla and the statement that her Quebec counterpart could speak for Canada at a UNESCO meeting? How about Quebec's participation at La Francophonie? There are many more examples but I am struggling to hold to non-partisanship.

With regard to Harper "preparing to dismantle the federal government", this smacks of the usual Ontario-centric claptrap. At least from the time of Quebec's Révolution tranquille there has been an understanding in some western circles that the natural national alliance is between Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia. The former province wants to make our federation work the way it believes it was intended to, the latter two provinces just want to make it work, period.

As for the prospects of electoral reform without the partisan baggage, those familiar with Fair Vote Canada's discussion board may remember that I have always had high hopes for a "bottom-up" success. That is, I expect that success will come at the provincial level, to be followed later by some sort of federal reform. I say some sort because I must say again that we live in a federation; what might work in New Zealand or the Netherlands may not work in Canada.

Patrick Brabazon

Fair Vote Canada is a "multi-partisan" organization, rather than "non-partisan". Many of our members are engaged in politics, and we have members in all the parties in Parliament, and in all the parties not in Parliament.

You may have detected a hint of the frustration we feel trying to get some right-of-centre politicians to understand that it is conservative parties, and conservative voters, who are the chief patsies of our current voting system. In fact, historically and statistically, the greatest victim of our voting system has been the late lamented Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, may it rest in peace. - Wayne

(Preston Manning may disagree. The "wall" that the Reform Party used to hit at the Ontario border was entirely an artefact of the voting system. They would get a quarter of the votes in Ontario and no seats.)

All right, I don't want to see this discussion degenerate into an argument over semantics. So, "multi-partisan" it shall be. That said, does it not behove this partisan member of the multi-partisan community to be very careful in my choice of language while making an argument for electoral reform? Does it serve "the cause" to ridicule or imply motives to politicians or political parties. If we wish to be truly multi-partisan we have to guard against insulting others in our community, whether directly or indirectly through their political allegiances.

As for the "frustration we feel" regarding "right-of-centre politicians" I can only suggest that you are in the wrong province, dealing with the wrong politicians. In B.C. it is those very "right-of-centre politicians" who have placed electoral reform front and centre on the public agenda. Oh yes, they stumbled, but the issue is still in play, and the NDP and the Green leader are being dragged into the game. I say leader, because failure to do so will result in a storm of protest from party members who will remind me that the leader's negative position on STV was not that of the membership.

A personal note: I too am a politician, albeit a minor one. I sit on a local government and I have to remember that I work for all of my constituents. They include federal Liberals, provincial Liberals [not the same as the others], Conservatives, NDPers, Greens, and a whole host of others. All get the same reception, all deserve the same respect.

Patrick Brabazon

This is a fair point. Here in Ontario, PR tends to be seen as a left-wing plot. Out west it is often seen as a right-wing plot.

The truth is that our current system is bad for all parties, even the winners. PR is not about what is good for parties. It's about what is good for voters!

Note that in his latest post, John has harsh words for the NDP. We'll try to insult all parties equally!

Wayne

Attention Mr. Wayne Smith

I am reading (and enjoying for the most part) your thoughts as posted on the 'blog' site.

However, I think there is an error in your Dec 12th 'Perils of Strategic Voting' paragraph 5. It is my understanding that only parties which receive more than 5% of the vote are eligible for the $1.75 . This basically excludes many of the smaller parties, and reinforces the status quo. This unfair 'taxation' must be stopped since it is wrong for any government to use my tax dollars to fund parties which I may be in complete disagreement with.

I think it is important for Canadians to vote positively FOR a party/candidate rather than negatively AGAINST a party/candidate. People are unduly influenced by polls, and this encourages strategic voting. It bothers me that the major media report as if there are only 4 parties in Canada, while in fact there are at least 14. As long as the current situation continues, we will have the unfair results and that is why I am in favour of electoral reform. That is why I joined Fair Vote Canada!! Keep up the good work!!

yours truly, Louis (Luke) Kwantes, Smithers, BC

Actually, Luke, I think the threshold for campaign financing is 2%. No doubt someone will correct me.

Fair Vote Canada has no policy on campaign financing, but the small party people I've talked to are pretty happy about the new rules, although they'd like to see the threshold eliminated altogether. They weren't getting any financing from the corporations or unions under the old rules. The Green Party now has about a million bucks a year, and the Communist Party is ecstatic that they can actually have an office and a telephone! - Wayne

Hi Wayne,

I'm responding to your invitation for comments for your blog. How about doing a piece on what fair voting means? It seems to me it means different things to different people.

I've observed that those on the left -- who generally want proportional representation -- are concerned about something the vast majority of people aren't concerned about and might well find offensive: "fairness" for political parties and politicians. PR is all about parties and whether they get what is mistakenly called their "fair" share of seats in an election, as if that ought to be be determined by some mathematical relationship between votes and seats won.

To me this seems ridiculously out of touch with what makes people cynical about politics. People aren't cynical or turned off because parties aren't getting a mathematically proportionate share of seats, but because politicians are often aloof and unaccountable to the people they're supposed to serve.

Elections aren't about parties, they're about the people deciding who will be entrusted with the responsibility and authority of government. Representative government rests on the concept that the government serves the people, not the other way around. When politicians are aloof and unaccountable they're not doing the job they're elected to do, and the people need a mechanism to replace them.

Preston Manning understood this. Remember the Reform TV ad that was shot in Parliament? The message was "These seats are yours. On election day, take them back." Manning didn't talk about mathematical formulas, but about making politicians accountable. He led a new party into second place and official opposition status by connecting with disaffected people's desire for government to be accountable.

I don't see a connection between PR and making politicians accountable, in fact some PR systems make accountability less likely than first past the post. MMP comes to mind in that respect, since voters can turf out an MP they've lost confidence in only to see that same person get back in by being high enough up on a party list. Nuts to that!!

What we need is not PR but accountability in government. Electoral reform advocates need to understand that to make any serious headway. I suggest the reason STV almost made it in BC is that it makes government accountable in a way list PR doesn't.

Bill Frampton

To me, and to Fair Vote Canada, "fair voting" means you get what you vote for. The largest group of Canadians votes on the basis of which party they want to form the government. The next largest group votes on the basis of which leader they want to be the Prime Minister, which amounts to the same thing. If the party that gets 40% of the votes gets 60% of the seats (and 100% of the power), and the party that gets 20% of the vote gets 10% of the seats, and the party that gets 10% of the vote gets diddlysquat, how can that be fair?

When millions of us - usually most of us - cast votes that don't affect the outcome of the election, and end up unrepresented, how can that be fair?

But you're right, elections aren't about parties, they're about people, and so is proportional representation. PR is about electing more women, and Aboriginal people, and minorities of all sorts. It's about making sure that every voice is heard, and everybody gets a seat at the table.

Proportional representation is about sending a clear message to the government by accurately translating the votes we cast into power in the legislature. Without that, there is no accountability. - Wayne

Dear Wayne Smith,

I enjoyed your Video and Roy MacGregor as mentioned in your E-mail Dec 21, 2005.

The problem (Fair Vote) is not unlike that of the environmental movement. A bunch of informed people talking to each other --we have to enlarge the circle.

With this in mind I suggested to my Alumni of the Citizen Assembly that some brilliant and talented fellow write a comic opera and get it out into the public.

People did it 300 years ago why not now? Just look at all the material out there.

Besides, the public is really wired for entertainment.

So, seeing Ferguson I'm encouraged.

Joe Trippi was the man behind Howard Dean promoting chatter and raising a lot of money. If you have not read his book I would recommend it.

Last point, reformers have to get their act together.

What specifically are we replacing First Past the Post with?

My answer of course--

Vox Populi, Vox Dei--STV

All other systems are a neat way of staying off the MESSAGE---------DEMOCRACY!

Merry Xmas

Fritz Zens

What specifically we are replacing First Past the Post with is up to the Citizens' Assembly or other citizen-driven process we come up with, and finally up to the people in a binding referendum. Fair Vote Canada doesn't design or endorse specific voting systems, although we do evaluate voting reform proposals according to the principles and objectives laid out in our Statement of Purpose.

We really do believe in democracy, and we believe that an informed and aroused public will usually make the best decisions.

Merry Christmas to you too, and God bless us, every one! - Wayne

The blog so far

2005-12-22T00:39:00.000-05:00

December 21, 2005

Ed is the new Ed

by Wayne Smith

Ed Schreyer, former Premier of Manitoba, former High Commissioner to Australia, and most notably former Governor-General of Canada, has announced that he will be running for the NDP in this election because it's "now or never" for him to speak out on democratic reform.

This means he will be filling the 'old warhorse' slot, recently vacated by Ed Broadbent, which has apparently become a regular feature in the NDP caucus. Perhaps the NDP would prefer to call it the 'elder statesman' slot. Or maybe we should just call it 'the Ed slot'.

Schreyer is concerned that power is too concentrated in the hands of a "presidential" Prime Minister.

"Whoever is working in the Prime Minister's Office, they surround him so he gets isolated," Schreyer said. "And then they start spooning him royal jelly until he becomes almost gorged on it."

This is why Canadian Prime Ministers and Premiers (and not just Liberals) are routinely described as "arrogant". Power corrupts every party, a sure sign of a systemic problem.

Like so much else, the roots of this problem lie in our winner-take-all voting system. Once a single party has a majority government and a monopoly on power (usually with the support of a minority of the voters), then as long as they enforce rigid party discipline, nothing bad can happen.

Parliament becomes irrelevant. Power recedes, not just into the Cabinet, but into the Prime Minister's Office, where unelected political advisors make the real decisions.

The Opposition is completely impotent, reduced to shrieking and bleating in the daily bad theatre known as Question Period, and desperately trying to dig up or fabricate some scandal to pin on the government, who generally don't pay much attention. Government backbenchers doze off, or weep quietly to themselves.

Proportional voting systems promote a more consensual style of government, coalition governments that represent a true majority of the voters and really do require the confidence of Parliament to stay in power.

A fair voting system unlocks the power, making the government accountable to Parliament and the legislators accountable to the voters.

December 19, 2005

Shoeless Steve Harper

by John Deverell

Stephen Harper has been in Québec, campaigning for people to vote Conservative to caste out the corrupt and arrogant Liberals and build a better, more unified Canada. But is this a serious effort?

Harper's Conservatives won only 8 per cent of the Québec vote last time. Most Canadians who read polls think the Bloc Québecois is on track to win 60+ of Québec's 75 seats. By calling for more Conservative votes in an first-past-the-post election is Harper really:
(a) trying to elect more corrupt and arrogant Liberals in Québec? or
(b) bullshitting, abandoning Québec, and preparing to dismantle the federal government in collaboration with the Bloc Québecois.

The clues are visible. Harper has consistently refused to consider a PR voting reform which would give Québec and other voters more nuanced choices. Instead he spoke today of how Québec should be separately represented at international conferences - a signal to Québec voters that he and the Conservative party will pander to the Bloc to get Harper into the Prime Minister's office.

Harper has not yet said whether he and Duceppe will let Ralph Klein's Alberta and Gordon Campbell's BC send separate representatives to international conferences.

John Deverell is Treasurer of Fair Vote Canada.

December 17, 2005

The NDP wants in

by Wayne Smith

Jack Layton managed to mention proportional representation twice in the French debate, and once in the English debate. Still, he missed a great opportunity when he was asked about western alienation.

One of the main problems with our current voting system is the way it exaggerates, and therefore exacerbates, our regional differences, and thus threatens our national unity.

Looking at the seat distribution in the House of Commons, you'd think that everybody in Alberta votes Conservative, everybody in Ontario votes Liberal, and most Québeckers are separatists. But this is an illusion created by the voting system.

Because of the winner-take-all nature of our current system, the strongest party in the region grabs all the seats with half the votes. Parties with regional concentration are rewarded, while parties with widespread support are marginalized. Whole provinces are shut out of government for generations. No wonder the west wants in.

Under a proportional voting system, almost every vote counts, no matter what party you support or where you live.

That's why Jean Chrétien said in a Calgary interview in 1984 that if he ever got to be Prime Minister, the first thing he would do would be to introduce proportional representation!

Somehow it must have slipped his mind after he got a majority government with 38% of the votes.

December 16, 2005

There's no business like . . .

by Wayne Smith

It's official. Politics is theatre.

With the content entirely predictable, the commentary on RDI after the French language debate was all about how the candidates presented themselves. And the next day on CBC Radio One, the analysis was done, not by political commentators, but by the theatre critic!

Stephen Harper's command of the French language left a lot to be desired. When one of the citizen questioners asked him whether he would swear on a Bible to keep his promises, he replied that he didn't understand the question, which was not the right answer.

The RDI commentators described his performance as "pénible", which is French for "robotlike and creepy". Actually, guys, he sounds like that in English too.

They were rather more impressed with Jack Layton, who managed to personalize his answers more than the others. However, they had already dismissed both Layton and Harper as "tourists" in the eyes of Québec voters.

As for the CBC drama critic, she said it was a bad play that we've seen before. When it was suggested to her that this was just a warmup for the exciting debate to come in January, she asked, "Is one of those people going to have sex?"

December 15, 2005

Harper misses the point

by Wayne Smith

The Conservatives have completely missed the point on democratic reform and are dodging the real issue. Stephen Harper's democratic reform package, announced yesterday, included no commitment to changing the way we vote to elect our MPs.

Surely the first thing we need is a fair voting system for Canada.

Ironically, the current first-past-the-post voting system has been the single most important factor keeping Mr. Harper's party from breaking through in Ontario and Québec.

In 2004, the Conservative Party got more votes in Ontario than they did in B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan combined, but they won only 24 seats in Ontario, compared to 61 in those three western provinces. In fact, their 300,000 votes in Québec elected no one at all in the last election, while 175,000 votes in Saskatchewan elected 13 Conservative MPs. Our voting system systematically marginalizes the Conservative Party while shutting the west out of power.

But Stephen Harper is hanging on for a phony majority government. He thinks this time it will be the Conservative Party that gets 40% of the votes, 60% of the seats, and 100% of the power. Mr. Harper had better wake up and smell the coffee.

Before a single ballot is cast in the upcoming election, we already know the outcome. Approximately six million voters will cast wasted votes that elect no one to represent them in Parliament. Some parties will get far more seats than their votes warrant, and others will win too few, or none at all. The resulting Parliament will not represent the electorate accurately, which means the resulting Government will not be accountable to Canadian voters.

Fair Vote Canada is calling on all parties to follow the lead of the B.C. and Ontario governments on electoral reform and establish a citizen-driven process that will allow Canadians to learn about modern, proportional voting systems and choose a fair voting system for Canada in a binding referendum.

We need a fair voting system now, and we need Canadians themselves - not politicians - to identify and choose the best system for Canada.

December 14, 2005

Beer & popcorn

by Wayne Smith

Ya gotta love it!

American elections are about bombs and blood. Canadian elections are about beer and popcorn.

Still, it's disconcerting when the mask slips away and the attitude of the Natural Governing Party towards its constituents stands revealed.

This is what happens when you have a winner-take-all voting system. Government becomes entrenched, and the irrelevant opposition slips into decrepitude.

It becomes virtually impossible to get rid of the government, even when they are wracked by scandal, because there is no viable alternative.

Believing themselves invulnerable, the government becomes increasingly arrogant and aloof, and ultimately corrupt.

We need a voting system that does not give absolute power to any party, but allows every party to have a place at the table and a voice that is heard. With a realistic chance to make a difference in the day-to-day operation of the nation, every party will have an incentive to be more responsible about what they promise and what they demand, and more civilized about how they deal with each other.

How can we hold government accountable unless every vote counts?

December 12, 2005

The perils of strategic voting

by Wayne Smith

Buzz Hargrove created a sensation at the very beginning of this soon-to-be-endless election campaign with a surprising call to his Canadian Auto Workers to vote for the Liberal candidate in ridings where the NDP has no chance of being elected.

This is not what Jack Layton wanted to hear.

But many voters feel compelled to consider the option of "strategic" voting because we are saddled with an antique voting system under which most votes are wasted on candidates who do not get elected, and voters are offered few real choices. However, there are some downsides that must also be considered.

1. Strategic voting is an abomination. If we had a fair and well designed voting system, voters would simply vote for the candidate, party, or leader they prefer and know that their vote would probably make a difference. No one would have to vote for the "lesser evil", and Parliament would truly reflect the political thinking of the electorate. The diversity of our communities would likely also be more accurately reflected.

2. Strategic voting is not even available to most of us. Most of us live in ridings that are "safe" for one party or another. Most of us know who will be elected in our riding before the votes are even cast. If you are not in a "swing" riding where there is a close race, then forget about strategic voting and vote with your heart.

3. Strategic voting is widely misunderstood and frequently botched. To some people, strategic voting just means "vote Liberal". In fact, the correct strategy is to decide which of the candidates in your riding actually has a reasonable chance of getting elected, and choose to vote for one of them. For some people, this will mean voting NDP. For some, it will mean voting Conservative or Bloc. For most, it will mean few choices, or none at all.

4. You could get it wrong. Although Canadian elections are lamentably predictable, you never know. Strange things happen in elections, and public opinion does change during the campaign. A prediction of defeat for your favourite party could be self-fulfilling.

5. Last, but certainly not least, votes trigger campaign financing for your party. The new campaign financing rules mean that every vote really does count, at least for $1.75. That's how much the party you voted for will get each year because you voted for them.

This makes a difference. For example, the Green Party now has a significant war chest, although their half a million votes last time didn't even come close to electing anyone.

But what's your vote really worth? This is the first election under the new rules, so frankly, we're not sure what's going to happen.

Here's the strategic voting dilemma. Should you cave in, hold your nose and vote for someone you can't stand, in a desperate attempt to make your vote count for something? Or should you vote sincerely, even when your vote probably won't affect the outcome of the election? You're damned if you do and damned if you don't-that is, until Canada joins the modern world and scraps our antiquated first-past-the-post voting system.

The solution is for Canadians to choose a modern, fair voting system that accurately translates the will of the voters, as expressed by the votes we cast, into seats in Parliament, and which will therefore allow us to hold government accountable. Most industrial democracies have been using proportional voting systems for most of the last century. Canadian voters too deserve a system designed to ensure that every voice is heard.

When will this happen? Not until it can't be prevented. People elected under the current system think that the current system is working just fine, thank you. One thing is certain-we won't have a fair voting system until voters demand it.

That would be you. Democracy is still, after all, a do-it-yourself project.

December 10, 2005

Canada Needs a Fair Voting System

By Wayne Smith

Canada has a voting system which exaggerates regionalism and threatens national unity.

Parties with regional concentration of support do well under the antique, winner-take-all system of voting we still use, while parties with national constituencies are marginalized by the voting system. If you're a Liberal voter in Calgary or a Conservative voter in Québec, well too bad for you. You'll never elect a representative to Parliament under this system. The Bloc Québecois hold the balance of power and the NDP do not, although the NDP have more than twice the votes. Half a million Green Party voters elected nobody in the last election.

Half the votes cast on January 23, 2006 will be wasted, simply because they favour losing candidates. A truly representative democracy would not scorn half the electorate every time out.

Most of us vote for people who don't get elected, so we end up with a government that most of us didn't vote for.

The next election results won't come any closer to accurately reflecting voter intentions.

We don't know the outcome of this or any election, but we do know this much-there will be a fresh crop of horror stories. Millions of votes will be wasted. We won't get the government we voted for.

During this election campaign, individual citizens can make a difference. Meet the candidates, from all parties. Ask them to stand up for democracy and let Canadians choose a fair voting system for Canada.

You can learn about fair voting reform at www.FairVote.Ca, join Fair Vote Canada, and take action for democracy.

Let's make this the last unfair election!

Wayne Smith is president of Fair Vote Canada, the national, multi-partisan citizens' movement for fair voting reform in Canada.

Wayne@FairVote.Ca