Liberals for Fair Voting

A new, small but growing Facebook group. Tell your Liberal-voting friends to join Liberals for Fair Voting.

Why the Liberal Party of Canada should lead on electoral reform. [2]

One of a small number of Liberal MPs who openly advocate proportional representation is Carolyn Bennett, a member of Fair Vote Canada's Advisory Board [3].

With the latest shadow cabinet shuffle "Carolyn Bennett is now in charge of democratic reform - a key issue for Ignatieff and his audiences in the summer tour" says Susan Delacourt [4].

This is good! Excellent even.

I don't mean to pop your balloon, Wilf but six members barely makes a dinner party, much less a facebook group.  And just because Iggy puts Carolyn Bennett charge of democratic reform doesn't mean that suddenly Iggy is a fan of PR.  The only time I've ever heard him speak on the subject was once in Victoria.  One of the Liberal youth asked him about PR and he immediately brought up Israel and Italy and said "he had to be convinced".  

In my books, anyone who immediately seizes upon the two worst examples of something already is convinced - and not in a good way.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, though.  Do you have any examples of Ignatieff saying good things about PR?

Could be a sign that they realize the phony majority machine may be broken, and that the Harpers could be left high and dry after the next election. It's possible that Parliament could be stuck in the same situation after the next election. I predict an all-time low voter turnout to beat the last one in '08. What will the Liberals do then?

I think at least one person in the Liberal Party will be considering that possibility. And the smart thing to do would be for Iggy to strike-up a partnership with the NDP and Bloc and slide into the PMO himself. It's either that or face going down in history as a mere toady to the Harpers and their political agenda. Strike it up, Iggy!

Fidel, maybe you're right.

But where's the evidence of that?

I think polls show the Harpers losing traction while Liberals are stuck in the mud?

If the results don't change much after the next election, I would think the Liberals' desperation level will increase some. I just can't see Iggy being happy to give up a window of opportunity to be PM even if only by a sordid menage a trois with the NDP and Bloc. It's either that or he will be given the hook by those controlling the strings in that party.

Fidel, I've asked for evidence.  All you're giving me is conjecture.

Oh the odds are probably not good. The phony majority machine needs only a relatively small percentage gain in votes for either party to win dictatorial power. But if not, four years is a long time for Iggy to continue playing a star supporting role for the Harpers. That won't do the LPC much good. They already know it looks bad, and voters are catching on according to results of the last election and "the polls" today.  Ongoing Harpers-LPC defacto majority would be good for Bay Street and needy corporations, banksters etc, but not good for the overall charade that says Canadians have a choice between two completely different political parties. This is what Liberals get for transforming themselves into a redundant conservative party. The 59% or so of eligible voters who are showing up to vote apparently don't want to give either one of the right-rightist parties a phony majority.

Whether we like it or not, the Libs aren't about to roll over any time soon so this needs to be seen as a medium to long-term project on the part of those Libs who have some democratic sensibilities.  You've got to start somewhere. There are a number of other high profile Libs who have shown an inclination toward PR in the past including (OK - howl away) - Lloyd Axworthy, Bob Rae, Monique Begin, George Smitherman and Michael Bryant. The Liberals for MMP blog has some more names so at least they're not starting from scratch. 

Keep talking to your Liberal friends. Now up to 11.

While I really like LLoyd Axworthy and even Tobin to a degree. The PR the libs are after is preferential voting. NO WAY.

That always favours the middle.

Preferential voting AKA the Alternative Vote (AV) would be an improvement over our current system.

If we had AV, strategic voting would finally come to an end.

Half of the debate here on Babble during elections would be over.

Preferential voting is NOT at all PR.

You must be thinking of the British Liberal Democrats. In their recent election they campaigned for PR, which they need. The Conservatives offered a referendum on preferential voting, which they call AV (the Alternative Vote). The Liberal Democrats had called AV "worthless" the previous month, but now they have embraced it. (We'll take some reform, any reform, even though it won't make much change in the result.)

Canada's Liberals have NOT said they want preferential voting (AV).

When the Ontario Citizens' Assembly voted on the various options, out of the 103 members only three wanted AV.

Would AV end strategic voting? AV is formalized strategic voting.

Women in National Parliaments

Canada ranks 51st below UAE, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Iraq, Timor etc. It's a national embarrassment!

It could mean that he is giving Carolyn Bennett enough rope to hang herself, letting her tar herself hopelessly with the cause that the party bigwigs loathe.

It could be that this is another Liberal Dance of the Seven Veils like national day-care, trying to suck PR supporters into voting Liberal while not making any promises they can't break.

Or maybe a bit of both.

But maybe he'll miscalculate the forces at play, or put his foot in his mouth like a certain prime minister in New Zealand.

Doug Woodard, St. Catharines, Ontario

Wilf, AV is certainly a poor substitute for proportional representation, but it is not worthless.

Strategic voting is classically concealment of one's true preferences in the interest of avoiding one's least desired outcome under FPTP.

With AV one can vote one's true preference without fear; it's just that voting one's true preference is not very effectual in getting one's mosr desired outcome. But one's second or later preference may be more effectual in avoiding one's worst outcome. 

In the recent election in Australia we saw how AV allowed Green supporters to give their first choice vote to the Greens in the election for the House of Representatives, while Green second choices allowed Labor to form a government more friendly to Green ideas than the alternative. AV has helped keep the Australian Greens alive, along with a rag, tag and bobtail of small parties that seldom elect anyone but help keep the big parties on their toes.

I grant you that the difference between AV and real PR is shown by comparing the results of the Greens in the House of Representatives elected by AV, 1 seat of 150, with the Senate half-election results by PR-STV, 6 seats of 40 (cumulative 9 of 76 for the whole Senate over the last two elections) with almost the same percentage of votes, roughly 11.5 % for the House and 12.5 % for the Senate.

Calculations of statistical disproportionality based on first choice votes in that Australian election may have been even more extreme than for the same vote choices in an alternate-universe FPTP election for the House. The statistics would not show that AV gave Labor a government and the Greens a seat and a second-best overall result, versus opposition for Labor and nothing for the  Greens under FPTP.

In Britain, AV over the last 90 years would probably have produced more moderation and realism in both the Conservatives and the Labour Party, and the likelihood that either might have been replaced in government by the Liberals/Liberal Democrats several times. It would have made a progression to proportional representation much less painful for the Conservatives and Labour. Neither would have the hope of exterminating the third party that they have under FPTP.

In Canada, AV might have resulted in the survival of the Progressive Conservatives on the federal scene, and a Bloc Quebecois represention closer to its vote, with federalist collaboration and exchange of preferences in Quebec plus Bloc second preferences for centre-left federalist parties. The regionalization of party representation might be less extreme across the country. Historically it would have been much easier for Quebecers and Maritimers to give a first choice vote to the NDP. The Greens would probably have a larger vote, and a seat or two. Again, a progression to  proportional representation would probably be easier.

Doug Woodard, St. Catharines, Ontario

Doug, great points regarding how AV is superior to FPTP.

The election in Australia was able to show how AV is a fairer system then FPTP. If Australia's election had been held under FPTP, the Green's would not have won a single seat and the Coalition would have won an illegitimate majority. Under AV, the Greens were able to win a seat and their second preference votes helped elect  a Labour government, the party that Green supporters liked much more then the Coalition. FPTP would have created the perverse situation where "Voting Green, Elects the Coalition."

Here in Canada FPTP allows slogans such as "Vote Green, Elect Conservatives" or "Vote NDP, Elect Conservatives" to have great resonance. If we had AV, such slogans for strategic voting would no longer be a part of Canada's political experience.

Here's an article that compares AV and FPTP:

Five reasons to be cheerful about the Alternative Vote ... 

In any case people should remember that fair voting systems like MMP - open list are far superior to AV, and of course, FPTP.

The BC Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform constructed an MMP - open list system using AV, not FPTP. I think this is the way to go.

The Green MP was elected only because the right had decided to give preferences to the Greens over the Labour party, as though the Greens were a centre party, in the long-shot hope of whittling down the Labour Party's seat total. To their surprise, it actually helped this once. Next election, they will not repeat this, since they consider the Australian Greens more radical than Labour. AV will hurt the Greens.

That's because Britain has a small centre party, which AV might help. Unlike Canada.

If every Quebec voter voted only as though the election was a referendum on federalism. They don't. Many Liberal and NDP voters would give second preferences to the Bloc as an Anyone But Conservative vote. Meanwhile, many Conservative voters are Quebec-first autonomists who would prefer the Bloc to the Liberals, just as the ADQ once allied with the PQ. The Bloc would end up with over 50% of votes on the final count, as voters vote against other parties rather than for sovereignty. More seats, not fewer.

A study looking at the possible effects of a wide variety of voting systems on federal election results in 1980 and 2000 found "for almost all parties regional imbalances would have been worsened if we adopted AV even (though slightly) more than under SMP (single-member plurality, or first-past-the-post)."

True, the slogan would be replaced with formalized strategic voting. Same results, but such voters would feel better about their vote? Sounds harmless. But AV exaggerates the tendency of the current system to direct all voters into a choice between two big-tent political parties. Projections of the 1980, 1997 and 2000 Canadian federal elections showed AV outcomes would be even less proportional than first-past-the-post. Proposals for cosmetic change are diversionary. Some established politicians are only too willing to misdirect public opinion in the name of reform. Democrats must be constant in the demand for fair democratic representation for every citizen and nothing less.

Of the 103 members of the Ontario Citizens Assembly, only three preferred AV. That's because the Ontario Liberals set up an honest process. Rigging an AV outcome would have been a prime example of manipulating the system to promote the interests of the government in power. They didn't do it. Honest Liberals will still think twice before promoting a system that, in Ontario (but not elsewhere), would be to their partisan advantage. 
 

In Canada when all electoral systems are compared and given a fair hearing by impartial groups the clear preference seems to be open-list MMP.

The Law Commission supported open-list MMP.

The Citizens Assembly in Ontario would likely have gone on to construct an open-list version, had they been given more time.

The BC Citizens Assembly would also probably have gone for open-list MMP if they had had a few more weeks to construct a complete open-list version. As it was they compared a half-baked version of MMP with STV and STV won by default.

I have little doubt of that. The Ontario mixed member model the Citizens' Assembly almost chose.

I'm less sure of that. You're right, they ran out of time to decide whether it was pure open-list or "flexible" open-list (that is, did voters have the option to vote for the slate rather than one candidate), but I'd bet they would have decided on pure open-list. They never decided whether it was four regions, five, or six, but I doubt that was a deal-breaker. They had already decided on 60:40 local MLAs and regional MLAs. I think they had made up their minds for STV already. Their STV version wasn't perfectly defined either: they gave rather vague and perhaps even contradictory guidelines on District Magnitude. Yes, they needed another month. But I don't know of any evidence they would have gone for open-list MMP. It was clearly their second choice, and as such should perhaps be re-examined [24], in view of the fact that 66% of BC voters said they were in favour of some proportional system, but only 39% for BC-STV. 

The problem I see with AV is that it gives us the government we are least passionate about--one way or the other.  The "meh" choice.  For us Liberals, I think it is burying your head in the sand to not realize how much some other party supporters hate us.  A lot of people right now will vote Anything But Conservative.  But that doesn't mean Liberal if they have the option.  It might mean NDP or it might be Green, but whichever it doesn't mean will be the second choice on a ballot--because Conservatives are hated only slightly more than we are!  You know yourself that while you'll put Liberal as your first choice, your second choice is likely to be Green or NDP.  Under AV, we could well end up with green Greens in Government!

And as Australia teaches us, AV doesn't necessarily give us a 'winning' party at all, and that was its only good point.

Well, it's up to 14 now, Wilf.  At the rate it's growing, it could be a viable group around, say, year 3500.

Maybe a hybrid version of MMP, STV and AV, could be constructed to satisfy people from varying viewpoints?

You could have a legislature where 45% of the seats are local single-seat AV ridings, another 45% of the seats could be regional multi-member STV ridings and 10% could come from a national/provincial top-up party-list to increase overall proportionality. People could be given 3 ballots. One AV ballot for the single-member constituency ridings, a STV ballot for the multi-members STV ridings and a third ballot, a preferential ballot, listing all the parties.

Voter choice, proportionality, and local representation would all be there. People would have representation at the local level, the regional level, and the national/provincial level.

Interesting.

In BC provincial elections, you'd have 38 single-member seats, much as same as federal ridings (which sounds fine to me but may not fly in BC). Another 38 regional seats, and nine provincial. I assume the local seats are counted first, and then in the regional STV count, ballots for any candidate who has won a local seat will be transferred to the next preference. This would mean the two elections would be parallel, not compensatory. The local results would leave a substantial deficit of smaller-party MLAs, so the calculation of the nine provincial MLAs would mainly or entirely be needed to compensate for disproportional results in the local tier. Right so far?

The provincial compensatory seats would be entirely a party-list system. Flexible-list? (Voters can either vote for the list or for one person on it?) Some anti-list people would want it entirely open. But of course that could mean Vancouver candidates would dominate.

The geography of the 38 regional STV seats could be a bit controversial. Is Vancouver Island (including Powell River-Sunshine Coast) a seven-seater? Is the Interior (Okanagan-Kootenay-Cariboo-Thompson) a seven-seater? If split, we get some nasty three-seaters. The North is a three-seater? (plus four local seats?) The Lower Mainland has 21 regional MLAs: three seven-seaters? A Vancouver+North Shore seven-seater, a Surrey-Richmond-Delta six, a Burnaby-New West-Tri-Cities four, and a Fraser Valley four?

As for applying this model to federal elections, I can't see it. Local ridings more than double in size! Regional MPs from groups of nine to 16 (average 12?) present ridings would work in some regions. Toronto is split into two regions? Middle-sized MMP regions (like nine local MPs, five regional) are a bit easier to sell than middle-sized STV regions (14 ridings become seven local MPs, a six-seater STV region, and a small share of -- in Ontario -- ten provincial MPs). No one in Quebec has ever discussed STV that I've seen, and not many in Ontario. And many Ontario voters would say even one MP from a province-wide party list is one too many.

Right. Except I'd keep the 36 constituency seats that we have federally and match them six 6-seat STV ridings for a total of 36 STV seats.  And keeping with the theme of "6" I'd have 12 top-up list members. So BC would have 84 seats just like it does now. I'd call the system BC-666 to get the evangelical Christian vote.

I'd have a flexible list where people would choose parties on a preferential ballot and then choose members from their first place party, on a STV preferential ballot. A STV preferential ballot would reduce the chances of Vancouver dominating and it would provide a lot of voter choice.

So the voters would have preferential 4 ballots:

1. AV Preferential ballot - single-member local constituencies
2. STV Preferential ballot - multiple-member ridings
3a. AV Preferential ballot- choose parties in order of preference 
3b. STV Preferential ballot - choose members of first choice party in preferential order

In a recent post, Stockholm mentioned the importance of "voter choice." I've taken that to heart.

- Voters would be free to make as many or as few choices as they want on each ballot. Voters could choose as many or as few candidates on each ballot as they want.

- Voters would be free to fill out as many or as few ballots as they want - 1, 2, 3, or 4.

Maybe a person would just make one single choice for a party and not use any of the other ballots. They could tick "NDP" and leave everything else blank, although I don't expect many would. The rare voter could just choose one local candidate or just one regional candidate.

The only downside of such a system would be that local constituencies would be a little more then twice the size they are now but how many people in Canada complain that their federal ridings are more then twice the size of their provincial ridings? Most aren't even aware there is such a discrepancy. And all variations of PR would have to increase the size of local constituencies. So it is an unavoidable part of having a more balanced electoral system.

This "voter choice" system is probably too removed from mainstream ideas about electoral reform but if I were king for a day I might experiment with such a system as it combines the strengths of different electoral systems.

This kind of system would also provide a lot of information regarding the voters intentions. Such a system would make it much easier to know which party the voters want to be their government.

Well I have no Liberal friends at the moment.

I came here because I thought the thread title was a joke (sorry) but that pretty much sums up what I think of the initiative for the moment.

I suspect the Liberals have to bleed a little more before they will endorse this. I might be okay with that though. I might agree with Debater on somethings once in a while but I still consider the Liberal party of Canada an obstacle to progress not a vehicle.

Even though prospects on the electoral reform front don't look good right now, I think it's important to prepare for a change in the political climate.

In the UK, electoral reform became the #1 issue when their election ended up with a "hung" Parliament. If Canada winds up with another minority situation, electoral reform could also become a make or break issue here for the parties in their post-election negotiations.  So it's good to prepare in advance. The Liberal Democrats were able get a referendum on AV in their negotiations with the Conservatives. AV was not the Liberal Democrats preferred choice. Maybe if they had been better prepared for the post-election negotiations, the Lib-Dems would have been able to get a better deal for something like AV-plus. Hopefully the NDP, if they get the opportunity after the next election, will be able to get a better deal on electoral reform, most likely with the Liberals.

The parties in Canada should all be preparing their negotiating positions well before the next election, in case the next election does not produce a majority.

In Brian Topp's book "How We Almost Gave the Tories the Boot" at p. 46 he says Layton directed that the "scenarios committee" be re-activated during the course of the campaign. It's a good bet that will happen again, with even better preparation than in 2008. Will the Liberals have one too? They'd be stupid not to. And the Liberals are not stupid. 

Maybe some politicians are already discussing certain types of electoral reform that they could agree to in the event of another minority situation. Carolyn Bennett and Ed Broadbent are both strong supporters of Fair Vote Canada. Maybe they've had some behind the scenes conversations.