babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Stable Majority Goverments and Electoral Reform
April 21, 2011 - 3:54pm
Since day one of the campaign, Harper and his gang have been consistently spining the message that a majority goverment for his party is good for us because it will provide stability. Let’s take a closer look at that highly dubious proposition.
First off, is a majority government in and of itself, no matter what party, necessarily a good thing? Despite our parliamentary traditions, I think not. Under our first past the post system, it obviously concentrates power undemocratically in the hands of one party which may or may not necessarily represent the full spectrum of Canadian citizenship. Discounting those who did not vote at all in the last election, for whatever reason, and given that three out of four people who did vote in the last election did not do so for the Harperites, Harper’s goverment, it would seem clear, did not represent the majority of Canadian citizens or necessarily their value when it assumed power in 2008. That’s a very significant exclusion of direct representation for a large number of people -- and that’s not taking into consideration how many who did not vote might not have been supportive of the Harperites, a perspective about which we can only speculate. So in and of itself a majority isn’t axiomatically a better form of goverment or a better form of democratic representation.
A similar question can be asked about stability. Does a stable government in and of itself automatically yield “better” goverment - whatever that might be - or a more democratically responsive goverment? One could argue that a stable goverment provides the ground of power to get things done, to move legislation and implement policy. But what if, say, two-thirds to three-quarters of Canadians disapprove of those policies and their legislative forms? Other than grass roots protests and political activism outside the system and perhaps, in limited ways, through the proxy of opposition parties can any sort of poltical objection be mounted. The problem is, however, that these forms of democratic action, as self-satisfying and sometimes effective as they might be, lack the efficacy that a voice in parliament would yield.
Democracy is, as many have said, a very messy business. We should rejoice in that fact, not bemoan it, as so many in the main line parties seem to do. Real democracy involves real participatory work that needs to be embraced by us all. From what I can see, the only formal remedy to speed up that full embrace is electoral reform based on proportional representation -- a form of broadbased democratic goverment well established around the world, the only exceptions in the western world being -- surprise, surprise -- the U.S., Canada, and Britain, this last, however, gearing up for a move towards real proportioal representation soon. Isn’t it about time that we begin gearing up too?
Take a look at what Fair Vote Canada is trying to do: Fair vote Canada.
How do we get there?
Freedom 55,
Here are some suggestions;
1) Establish a network of all the grassroots organizations across the country who have or would support proportional representation -- a sort of ACTION NETWORK focused on democratic reform.
2) Seek resources and - judiciously - support internationally.
3) Work the media assiduously in an effort to create a wide public discourse about the issue.
4) Begin serious lobbying of the main line parties that might benefit from proportional representation. (After this election, that may number two, not one.)
5) Lobby provincial parties that would benefit from proportional representation in their jurisdiction to bring them on board the NETWORK.
5) Consider legal options if necessary and possible.
Freedom 55
Let me add to my remarks above. We should all probably have a good conversation about mandatory voting and the notion of a preferential ballot first. The latter is very attractive as a fall-back position to proportional representation. When one votes, one chooses a preferential order of candidates. Political parties use this system, but it too has its problems. Proportional still seems the fairest, most democratic method even if the results are messy and involve agreements and negotiations. That's what democracy is all about, one could argue
The obstacle to improving our political system seems to be what Machiavelli was writing about when he said "Anyone who wants to change an established system can expect vociferous opposition from those doing well under the current system, and only lukewarm support from those that may do well after the change." If you put the question of 'do we need change?' to voters, I'm confident we'd see electoral reform. As long as any motion for change has to come from elected representatives, the chokehold Liberals and Conservatives have held on power virtually guarantees that neither of them will ever support electoral reform. You cannot generally convince those who have a surfeit of power to relinquish it voluntarily. In the unlikely event of an NDP majority, we might see some traction for fixing the system, but shy of that, the foxes are running the henhouse.
To the degree to which most of the electorate votes Lib or Con, and to the degree that the Cons and Libs have occupied 24 Sussex since Confederation, why do you suppose the electorate would prefer this? Aren't they, really among the lukewarm group?? Sure, in isolated pockets, some Libs or some Cons might benefit from PR, but I think they're clever enough to realize that overall, they won't really.
Also, in Ontario and BC, it WAS put to voters.
In BC it was voted on in a undemocratic referendum. The majority of voters voted for change but fell below the artificial super majority required by the rigged law. It is not only in places like Venezuela that democratic politicians can't resist stacking the decks in their favour before a vote.
That's why the strategies I suggest above might have a chance. I do not believe for one minute that putting the question to the electorate or to the main line federal parties directly will change a thing without a lot of groundwork first One needs to exercise a variety of strategies sequentially or co-ordinated for maximum impact. With perhaps enough pressure, the public will could be changed and then the Main line parties could be confronted directly.
Wonder whether any of the Party leaders have read The Prince.
Personally, I don't really have a problem with supermajorities for big decisions like this, that have no built in time limit the way sitting governments do.
Anyway, what about Ontario?
There's a good argument that changing the rules of the game requires a supermajority. Many countries have concluded that changing the constitution requires a supermajority. Although it's on the dry side, "The Calculus of Consent" (Buchanan & Tullock) goes through this in some detail.
what about Ontario?
Given their past and current majority inability to think rationally, as evidenced by the election of Harris, then McGuinty, and now Rob Ford for Mayor, while srtill harping about Rae 20 years ago and who is now in another party...which I might add they vote for in the majority, or did...one might expect a little much from most Ontarians when one asks them to do good things for themserlves by not voting against their best interests.
Whenever I hear the word, "stability," I reach for my bomb shelter:
What abour a referendum vis-a-vis a supermajority or a referendum that requires a supermajority, which is what? 80% 90%? I could live with that perhaps. 51% tellls us nothing. Again, one needs an informed citizentry for that process to work, and, again, I think the groundwork is crucial for any kind of electoral trasnformation. That did not happen in Ontario or B.C.
Of courseal-Qa'bong, I'm questionng the very notion of "stability" as a desirable. It's an illusion if not a crass political ploy.
No one got to vote on our current FPTP system. Our voting system was given to us by way of the divinely anointed King. He channeled the godhead for the British Law Lords and they sent the result to the colonists. It is called the BNA and is Canada's DNA.
So Snert what do you propose as the percentage required for living citizens to overturn the system designed by a bunch of dead white guys in Westminster? Being a firm believer in democracy I think that a simple majority of the people should decide the voting system for our House of Commons or Legislatures. I believe that is called democracy. I trust the public's wisdom and don't feel the need to give the status quo any advantage.
You have us down to a 'T', remind.
But we elected Rae on the eve of the "second worst" recession since the Big One (we are now struggling to stay employed in the The Great Recession). Folks run scared and look for change. It's called survival instinct. Unfortunately, one has to play some sort of big game with big money, or they take their marbles and play with people even more frightened, somewhere else. The employed know this, and this time around I think that some know that Jack knows this. The media can't deny his competence.
My "vote yes for MMP" T-shirt hangs in the closet where it's resided since the end of the Ontario campaign four years back. I might live long enough ( we identified as "old guys for MMP") to bring it out again should the prospects for employment in Ontario again look a little brighter. In the meantime, solidarity with the workers of B.C.
As I said, I don't have any quarrel with 60%. That seems a sufficient margin to be certain that we've captured the people's will.
Anyway, here in Ontario any supermajority was a moot point. We got up to 37% in favour of a change, with 5 of 107 ridings voting Yes to MMP. We could have set the bar to a ridiculous 40% and we still wouldn't have got there.
edited to add: I wasn't aware of the SECOND referendum in BC. Evidently the support went from 57.7% in the first referendum to about 39%.
So I guess everyone that was hungry for change just moved away? Died? Sold their vote?? What?
I'm going to suggest that the 60% supermajority was clearly a good idea. Without it, the entire electoral system would have been overhauled to a system that the second referendum demonstrates was not what the electorate wants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Italy#Chamber_of_Deputies
Unlike the inherent top-ups of FPTP or AV, the top-ups used in Italy and to a lesser extent Greece aren't subject to the wasted vote argument.
In fact, one other top-up that isn't mentioned but should be: a single party not in a coalition that obtains 50%+1 of the votes should be entitled to enough seats to change the constitution without confederalist or federalist obstacles. [BTW, the Nazis never obtained this; their ascent to power was due to coalition maneuvering.]
I would modify the requirements above to 1% for pro-coalition parliamentary parties, 3% for non-coalition parliamentary parties, and 20% for coalition caucuses. Generally speaking, there's a government coalition and a main coalition opposition. I'm not aware of any third-party or fourth-party coalition oppositions.
The top-up system I have in mind might be more complicated. For example, if there's a plurality winner that is a single parliamentary party, and the runner-up is a coalition, I would be more inclined to award the entire top-up to the single party.
In short, the suggested PR system would encourage coalitions and discourage them depending on the circumstances.
Thoughts?
Snert in your world relentless propaganda campaigns by the ruling elite have no effect on voters. After the citizens overwhelmingly voted yes the province was subjected to a three year propaganda war by our MSM, Howe Street and much of the trade union elite. During the first referendum there were far less chicken little stories about the horrors of STV. When the voters are told the same lie over and over many of them start to accept it as truth. But I know from other responses you don't believe voters are swayed by propaganda because you yourself with all your status quo views believe you are not being influenced.
You claim Venezuela is an example of a rotten democracy because 49% of the people can elect a majority government but you think 41% of Canadians should be able to determine our type of democracy in the face of 59% wanting change. I can't quite follow your logic but it appears you don't trust the will of the people and believe that chance should be discouraged and made more difficult so that the status quo is not disturbed unless a super majority say so.
I would prefer legislative accords to any coalitions. Support for specific budgets and legislation hammered out in advance and then tabled by the NDP minority government would be my preferred governing model. But that is only realistic if the NDP team is in the neighbourhood of 90 to 100 seats. I'd love to believe we are going to see that result but I have expected big gains in the past when the NDP only gained very marginally. For me realistically as long as the NDP moves into official opposition this will be a historic break through.
I see. And was it successful because it was rational and correct, or because the people are gullible?
IMHO, another option would be to go with a straight 50%+1 for a pilot project of one election. But yes, I do believe that decisions affecting the very structure of our governance should require a bit more buy in than a government that will last at best a few years before we all get another chance to decide whether we like it or not. How long have we had FPTP? 143 years? I'm not that comfortable that on the strength of as little as one voter, we might change to another system for the next 143. You don't have to agree, of course, but I don't see something other than 50%+1 as necessarily anti-democratic. We've all heard of "quorum", yes?
Snert I didn't expect the referendum to include the line that the new system will be set in stone and never subject to change. I also don't think a referendum should even be required.
I think that our electoral rules are less important than other things in our constitution and our Westminster system gives the power and authority to the parliament because that is our democratic tradition not referendums. We elect MP's who go to Ottawa to make laws to promote Peace Order and Good Government (sec 91) and they have been given the authority also to determine how we conduct of our democracy because parliament in our system is defined as the will of the people. Although it is pretty dry I posted a lecture by Blakeney in his thread where he gives an excellent historical analysis of how our democracy has evolved. If you haven't listened to it yet I would recommend it to you. Our 143 year old system vests the authority for electoral change in the MP's not a republican exercise in democracy.
A quorum if I understand it rightly is merely the minimum number of members of an organization or government a constitution or set of by-laws requires before a meeting has the legal authority to conduct any business. What exactly did you mean? Sometimes you are so obtuse I can't follow you.
I think the current House of Commons quorum is 20, if that helps?
OK, but neither has FPTP been formally set in stone either, and here we've been for 143 years anyway.
Suppose the referendum were to drop public health care and adopt a private system such as they have in the U.S. -- would you want more than a simple majority for a change of that size? I totally would. Never mind the billions of dollars we'd have to spend on such a change, I think the change itself is just too big to not ensure a very clear, robust majority. Even if we could hold another referendum ten years later.
That 60% is effectively a quorum, and that we generally don't think a quorum is the death of democracy.
Interesting. But pretending for a moment that parties and MPs don't have their own horse in this race, why should my MP try to institute a change to PR when at the last referendum the electorate basically said No?
A 60% quorum? You think that the House should not be able to do business without 185 MP's sitting in their seats? Interesting idea but certainly not the current 20 and I think a 60% quorum would leave most boards and groups in a constant state of inertia.
Referendums have been held because the MLA's in those jurisdictions decided to use their constitutional authority to go down that particular path. Our constitution vests that authority in our democratically elected representatives and that is our 143 year old tradition. If parliament changed to a system that more closely represented the will of the people then obviously that would result in a new parliament with the authority of parliament just like the last elected parliament. If the people think it sucks badly then they will vote accordingly and send MP's to the House determined to either reverse or tinker further. Referendums may have some uses but only when they are held at the same time as general elections and only if they happen extremely rarely. But those decisions on process of reform belong to parliament and are not set down in our constitution. In Canada I get to try too elect an MP from my party to go to the House and if they and similar minded MP's form the government they speak as the people and don't need any referendum to legitimize their actions.
Polls taken in 2001, 2004, and 2010 show a majority of Canadians support PR.
So if Ottawa decided to rush ER/PR through Parliament, like they did with sweeping changes to the Bank of Canada Act without any debate in 1991, and even though a large majority of Canadian voters voted for anti-FTA parties and parties promising to either abrograte or renegotiate NAFTA, then should we simply assume a majority of Canadians would come to accept such reforms to modernize Canada's electoral system similarly?[/tongue in cheek]
I was referring to a 60% quorum on electoral change. Y'know. The 60%?
I'm curious though -- and please be honest here -- if the referenda in BC and Ontario had resulted in Yes mandates, would you be suggesting that referenda are the wrong way to go (and in effect, arguing that we should dismiss those results)? I guess I don't really remember any pro-PR folk, on the eve of the referendum, declaring that the whole think is a mess and that MPs (most of whom would be certain to vote AGAINST PR) should be making this choice.
I think we should continue pressing for ER of our dysfunctional 19th century electoral system regardless. Court challenges against the currently unconstitutional electoral system should continue until every Canadian of voting age is made equal to one vote. One Canadian one vote.
I totally agree that we should keep electoral reform alive. But trying to present FPTP as some kind of violation of my rights? Best of luck.
Kind of a catch-22, though, when you think about it. How can an illegitimately elected Parliament vote to change electoral systems?
I politely gave you a good definition of the word quorum. Please educate yourself further on the usage of the term at your leisure. The requirement to have more than a simple majority is called various things including super majorities in the popular lexicon. You will find most boards and other organizations require special majorities to change constitutions and bylaws. However they do not exercise any sovereign authority like our MLA's but are instead are creatures of the legislations that created laws like the Societies Act.
You have missed my point so I will reiterate it. The legislation of BC has the sovereign authority to determine how it elects itself. That is the Westminster tradition that predates 1867 by a couple of centuries. The BC Liberals used their authority in the parliament to set up a Citizens Assembly and a referendum. Once the parliament has made that chose that is the legitimate method. It however is not the normal method in our system. It was a right wing bone given to the Reform voters for voting for a party with liberal in its name. Direct democracy and open government were the lies that Campbell ran on.
I have always believed that the referendum was unnecessary and merely cheap right wing politics with a "democratic" process tilted in favour of the very system that had just landed them in office with all but 2 seats after less than a 10% swing in the popular support.
It's funny you say that, because the Law Society says SMP/FPTP violates sections 3 & 15 (pdf) of the Charter of Rights.
Some lawyer types named Smith & Aucoin, Pros and cons of mixed member PR (LCC 69-71). Mind us, those guys are prolly wordsmiths and have gleaned every consanant and syllable, parsing front to back and vice versa the list of rights. They prolly aced every English class from grade school grammar to Victorian lit etcetera. I mean, those guys are real hair splitters and not prone to missing too much even.
Interesting, but even PR won't guarantee that right for everyone. If I'm one of seven people who vote for the Totally Unpopular Party, my vote won't count.
Also, while I'm no Atticus Finch, I would read the above to say that we all have a right to vote in elections, and we are all equal in that right. Only with considerable stretching can that be read to say that everyone one of us has a Charter right to have our vote equally influence Parliament.
And if you do that stretching then you run into the problem from the first paragraph. How do you intend to solve that problem? If the answer is to say "well, there won't be that many of them, so we'll just ignore them" then that's pretty much what we do with marginal parties right now. If it's a Charter violation when it happens to the Greens, Family Coalition and Totally Unpopular Party supporters then it will remain a Charter violation when it happens only to the Family Coalition and Totally Unpopular Party.
So you're saying that until an absolutely perfect system is devised, we should stick with the most mathematically absurd and least efficient one?
Why not go the other way, and instead of the remote possibility for pluralities by a single vote in every riding guaranteeing 110% of political power to one of two old-old parties, we could just have a round robin between the two most popular cliques and settle things with a coin toss? Wouldn't that save the taxpayers a lot of money every four years? Why not just appoint a lady of the lake to decide? Or Excalibur perhaps? Stone of Scone? Witen? What do we really mean by "stable government"? Is that like when some votes count while millions of others are either cancelled outright or just wasted in general?