Andrew Coyne - The Case Against First Past the Post

Original text at http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/09/case-against-first-past-post.php

Democracy, as everyone knows, is a system of majority rule. It is a system marked by free and fair elections between rival political parties, their success or failure depending on the number of votes they can attract. It is a system in which every adult citizen has an equal say in choosing who should represent them.

By every one of these definitions, Canada, under the electoral system in use today, is not a democracy....

By every one of these definitions, Canada, under the electoral system in use today, is not a democracy. We are not governed by majorities, competition between parties is not free and fair, nor do their relative fortunes depend on their popularity with the voters. Most striking of all, we do not give every citizen equal say at election time. Everyone may get one vote, that is true. But some votes count more than others. Some -- most, in fact -- do not count at all.

That is the record of plurality or "first-past-the-post" voting, the system Ontario voters are to be asked to replace in next month’s referendum. Its supporters appeal to a sentiment of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But it is broke, and this is the opportunity to fix it.

Consider some of the results of recent elections. In Ontario, an NDP government was elected in 2000 with 37% of the vote. In British Columbia, the NDP won a majority of the seats in the 1996 election though it received less than 40% of the vote -- not merely fewer than a majority, but fewer than its nearest rivals, the Liberals.

These are hardly unusual. In 26 federal elections since 1921, there have been 16 majority governments elected, but only two that actually commanded a majority of the vote. The rest were minorities posing as majorities, wielding undivided power though as many as five voters in eight voted against them. Supporters of the status quo cite its tendency to produce stable majority governments. But these aren’t majority governments. They’re legalized coup d’etats.

False majorities are but one of the distortions to which the present system gives rise. It is not unknown in this country for one party to take all or nearly all of the seats in the house, with 60% or less of the popular vote -- as happened in B.C. in 2001, and New Brunswick in 1987. The 40% of the public or more who voted for other parties, with other philosophies, were effectively disenfranchised: entitled to vote, but not to representation, which alone gives votes meaning.

Small, startup parties, like the Greens, know what it’s like to be shut out. In the last federal election, the Greens obtained more than 660,000 votes, nearly 5% of the popular vote -- yet they got zero seats. Nor is that injustice restricted to the smaller parties. The 27% of Albertans who voted Liberal or NDP in 2006, but got no seats; the 38% of Ontarians who voted Conservative or Alliance in 2004, but got two seats; the majorities of Quebecers who voted for federalist parties in every election since 1993, only to see the Bloc Quebecois take a majority of the seats -- how much different would our history have been had our electoral system not presented, time and time again, such a false picture of the country?

These anomalies and distortions are reflections of what goes on at the riding level: The winner is not the candidate who receives a majority of the votes cast, but simply the one who comes in first place. With four candidates, it can be done with as little as 25% plus one of the vote. The other 75% of the voters are rewarded for doing their civic duty with … bupkus. All in all, between one-half and two-thirds of all the votes cast in a given election are, in this sense, wasted.

The practice of giving representation only to the winning party is what biases the system against smaller parties, or against larger parties that are in a minority in a given region: a party’s success depends not on now many votes it has overall, but how well it can bunch them geographically. Hence the Conservatives, in 1993, won 16% of the vote nationwide, and were rewarded with two seats, while the Reform party, with 18.7% of the vote, won 52 -- two seats fewer than the Bloc was able to win, with just 13.5% of the vote.

The result is, in democratic terms, chaos. Nobody knows what impact their vote will have, or how it will translate into seats. Indeed, they are often told they cannot even vote for the party of their choice, for fear of “splitting” the vote, but rather must vote for some other party, to stop yet a third from getting in. All we know with certainty is that some votes count for less than others -- a lot less. When 2.6 million federal NDP votes equal 19 seats, as in 2006, but 1.6 million Bloc votes equal 51 seats, it means that each Bloc vote was worth more than four NDP votes.

Phoney majorities, barriers to competition, discrimination between voters -- that’s the case against the current system.

David Chudnovsky (NDP MLA) - Last Speech in BC Legislature (March 2009)

Excerpts below (emphases ours); full original text available at http://www.leg.bc.ca/HANSARD/38th5th/h90326p.htm

Chudnovsky's critique of our current voting system and the way government works:

... Madam Speaker, I've spent four years here, so it seems to me I have the right and, I think, the responsibility to say some things about this Legislature and how it works — or doesn't work. If the people of the province actually spent some of their time watching us here, they'd be appalled. Every one of us knows that. It's not just that we heckle and yell at one another. It's much more fundamental than that.

They sent us here to govern, and we don't. Everybody who works here knows that the real governing takes place in the Premier's office with a few handpicked friends and advisers. That's not just this government. I'm not talking about just this government.

We here in this chamber are a kind of sideshow — an important sideshow but a sideshow nonetheless. We're part of the show that results in the choice of the next Premier in whose office the small group of advisers will again make the important decisions.

Who's winning question period? What's the tone in the Legislature? Who's made the best quips this week? Add those questions to the results of the latest polling and the opinions of a few pundits, and presto, we have what passes for politics in British Columbia. Rather than substance, this chamber is filled with sound and sometimes fury, but it signifies not very much.

The people sent us here to listen to one another, but we don't. They sent us here to negotiate with one another, but we don't. They sent us here, every one of us, to advise government, to take the debate seriously and to be taken seriously, but we don't. That's mostly because the debate hardly matters.

The people expect that when the opposition asks a simple, straightforward question, the government will give a straightforward answer. But that's not the way it works. Here again, I'm not talking about this government. I'm talking about the government of the day. Instead, we've created a system where the questions become the politics of question period, because there are never any answers. How pathetic.

Solutions Chudnovsky proposes:

But it's not enough to bemoan what is. What could we do to make it better? Here are a few modest suggestions. The Legislature should have a committee structure that matters. All-party committees should study and make recommendations on emergent and ongoing issues. Consensus decisions should be required, and recommendations should lead directly to draft legislation, and then you can vote how you want to vote.

Party discipline should be enforced only on matters of confidence and on proposed legislation that was committed to specifically as part of the platform of a party during the previous election.

Question period rules should require a specific answer to a specific question, and the Speaker should enforce these rules strictly. When the Minister of Education, for instance…. Here I don't mean to centre out the Minister of Education. It's just that education is my stuff. It's what I care about the most. When the Minister of Education answers a detailed question about cuts to education service to children — our children — with her irrelevant dirge that more money is being spent than ever, she does the province no favours.

She could say: "That's all the money we have" or "That's all the money we choose to spend, because there are other priorities" or "That's as much as we think is necessary." Any of those answers would generate a real debate about education, and that would be good for our province.

It will take a Premier and a government with real courage to make such a change, but until it happens, question period will continue to be a poor excuse for a reality TV show rather than an opportunity to improve our province.

Every MLA should be required to hold three or four town hall meetings in his or her constituency each year. These should be widely advertised and should be part of the budget allocation for constituency offices.

We should institute a form of mixed-member proportional representation so that every vote is meaningful and every significant point of view is represented.

Dennis Pilon (UVic Political Science) - Case Against First Past the Post

Original text at: http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/01/09/STV2009/

When University of Victoria political science professor Dennis Pilon this weekend addresses a Wosk Centre for Dialogue room full of people who want to change British Columbia's voting system, he'll advise them to spend at least as much time focussing on the problems with our current first-past-the-post system as they do selling the single-transferable vote (STV) alternative.

"That's really the greatest strength in this debate," said Pilon, who wrote The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada's Electoral System. "Many people do not understand our current system, do not understand how it works. The more people understand how it works, the less they like it."

The system gives consistently strange results, he said, sometimes to the advantage of one party, sometimes to another. In 2001, for example, with 58 per cent of the B.C. popular vote, Gordon Campbell's Liberals won 77 out of 79, or about 97 per cent, of the seats in the legislature.

But in the previous election, in 1996, Campbell was himself the victim of electoral wonkiness when Glen Clark's NDP won a majority of seats in the legislature despite losing the popular vote. Campbell's party won 37,500 more votes than Clark's, but still had to spend five years hectoring from the opposition benches.

The system needs to be changed so it consistently reflects what voters want, he said. With a referendum planned on the question along with the general election in May, B.C. has an opportunity to make that change and Pilon will be doing what he can to help inform people what they are voting on.

"I think all political scientists are both observers and advocates, though they may not be that frank about it," he said. "We come to our advocacy by observing, looking at how different systems work and deciding which one we think is in the public interest... I have studied voting systems and I think if we want a representative democracy, this is a better choice. This will give people what they're asking for. That's my opinion."

The Tyee recently spoke with Pilon about the pros and cons of the old and the proposed systems, why he thinks a change is needed and how to separate the facts from the scaremongering in the coming debate.

Why is this change needed?

"A lot of voters if you ask them will say they're unhappy with the way democracy works. They're unhappy with the way the parties are performing. They're frustrated with the kind of accountability they seem to be able to get under our current system. I do think STV will address some of those concerns."

What information do people need?

"What people need to know is what kind of results might we expect from the different systems. We know the kind of results we'll get from the current system. People need to understand, and they don't understand, that a minority of voters often get a majority of the seats. Some people might think that's okay. A lot of people might be surprised to learn that. Our system is one that tends to produce majority governments. Some people like that. Some people think that's good. And that needs to be set out so people can say, 'Right, I like that, I'm going to vote for it.'

"Or we could have this other system. This other system, if we look at how it's been used in other countries, has also tended to produce fairly stable government. Has tended to produce more parties, a broader range of choices for voters and has tended to create a coalition dynamic for governments. The bottom line is both systems have produced governments that could get things done. The question is, do people like the opportunities these different systems offer."

Visit the Tyee for more on Pilon's answers to questions from the Tyee about both FPTP and BC-STV.

Carole James' Charge to the BC Citizens' Assembly

Original text at http://www.bcndp.ca/node/1218. Emphases ours.

James presents to Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform

June 17, 2004

Kamloops -- British Columbia needs to adopt a made-in-BC electoral system that better reflects our province's diversity and opens the doors to participation in the political process, NDP Leader Carole James said today.
James presented the BC NDP's position on electoral reform to the Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform in Kamloops today.

She reiterated the BC NDP's support for the Assembly's work and stressed that political parties should take a back seat to citizens in the development of a proposal for reform.

The elements of the BC NDP's position on electoral reform adopted at its 2003 convention include the adoption of an electoral system that provides greater proportionality in the allocation of seats while ensuring significant local representation, in particular representation for rural and remote regions.

"We recognize that the Citizens' Assembly faces a formidable challenge in attempting to design an electoral system that will meet the needs of British Columbians," James told the Assembly. "We need a made-in-BC solution to the ills that beset our current voting system. In our view, proportionality and local representation must be the key ingredients of a new electoral system for British Columbia."

Joy MacPhail Calls for Citizens' Assembly

March 2002. Original text at http://www.bcndp.ca/node/1404. Emphases ours.

NDP calls for non-partisan approach to electoral reform - March 15, 2002

New Democratic Party Opposition leader Joy MacPhail today proposed a framework for a non-partisan review of B.C.'s electoral system to Premier Gordon Campbell. "In the past decade a consensus has been emerging among people of all political persuasions on the need for substantive reforms to our political institutions," said MacPhail. "Mr. Campbell himself has recognized this with his New Era commitment to appoint a citizen's assembly on electoral reform."

"The New Democratic Party urges the B.C. government to honour their election commitment and move forward with a process of public consultation on the design of a more proportional electoral system." MacPhail stressed the importance of ensuring a non-partisan approach to electoral reform, citing the need to ensure that BC's regional diversity and unique geography is given fair representation.

"It would be a step backwards if one party or partisan organization were to design a voting system or determine electoral boundaries. If British Columbians are to have any confidence in their voting system, it must not be perceived to further any partisan interest."

The proposed framework is outlined in an open letter addressed to Premier Campbell. A copy of the letter can be viewed on the B.C. NDP web site. Go to:

www.bc.ndp.ca/news/020315_PRlet.pdf

Several organizations committed to electoral reform have welcomed the directions of the NDP proposal.

"A fair electoral system has to be developed with a fair process," said Stephen Phillips, chair of History and Political Science at Langara College. "The NDP proposal is inclusive and sensible."

During the 2001 provincial election, the B.C. Liberal's New Era platform committed to "appoint a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform to assess all possible models for electing the MLAs, including preferential ballots, proportional representation, and our current electoral system."

Premier Gordon Campbell's Speech Supporting the Establishment of the Citizens' Assembly

April 28 2003. Original text available at http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/37th4th/h30430p.htm. Emphases ours.

Hon. G. Campbell: I move Motion 99 standing in the name of the Attorney General on the order paper.

[Be it resolved that this House supports the creation of a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform as expressed in the terms of reference and duties of the chair tabled in the House on Monday, April 28, 2003.]

I am pleased to stand today in support of this motion. It is a long time. In fact, this has never happened before, where a legislative body has said to the people who elect them that they want the advice of the public on how we should elect our elected representatives in the province of British Columbia. Indeed, if you go back to 1858, this is the first time in 145 years we are actually giving the people of British Columbia a direct say in how they should elect the MLAs that are meant to serve them. After all, in a democracy, we should remember we are here at the service and the pleasure of the people of this province.

On April 17, 1999, while I was still in opposition, I said that it was time we gave the people of B.C. the right to demonstrate how they want to elect their MLAs. I am proud to stand here today and say that this is the first government in the history of British Columbia — this is the first government in the history of our country — that has given the people that right.

There is no more fundamental tenet that we agree to as we seek office than that in a democracy, the rules of the democracy should be designed by the people they serve, not by the power brokers who may wish that the democracy worked in their interests. It is by turning to the people and trusting the public that I believe we can re-establish the critical link between our democratic institutions and those that they are supposed to serve.
I said before, as we entered office, that we wanted to try to restore and re-establish the trust of the public for their public institutions. I can think of no more important way to do that than for those of us who are fortunate enough to be elected and to serve in these institutions to trust the public, to trust the public's judgment and to trust the public wisdom as we fashion a legislature that will truly meet the needs of every single part of this great province.

Today we are debating a motion that will make our commitment to the people of B.C. a reality. The citizens assembly, as I said, is a first for British Columbia. It's interesting that since 1949 — between 1949 and 2001 — there was not a government in this province that was elected by more than 50 percent of the popular vote. There have been people that have asked legitimate questions with regard to how we elect our elected representatives. The former MLA Nick Loenen, who has looked at this and examined this for some time, has some suggestions for how he thinks we could improve the system. I know members of this chamber, having experienced it, will have their own suggestions.

The critical thing for us to recognize is that in a democracy, the open sharing of information, the open search for solutions to reform, to reinvigorate and to revitalize our public institutions should be an ongoing learning experience. It should be an ongoing search for discovery of what will do the best for the people that live in our province. I am proud to support this motion, and I am proud to be part of a legislature that has tabled it in the hopes that we can create that revitalization.

These decisions should be made by those who elect us. Last September the government asked Gordon Gibson, a former member of this House, a former leader of a political party in the province but, more importantly, someone who has spent his life examining our public institutions in Canada and here in British Columbia…. We released Mr. Gibson's report, and I recommended both to members of this assembly and to members of the public who are interested to look at the various issues Mr. Gibson dealt with and the recommendations he came forward with. It is his recommendations that form the foundation for the motion which is before this House today.
There are some critical components of those recommendations, which I believe are fundamental to both the spirit and the intent of what this government is committed to doing. We wanted as much as we could in this government to depoliticize this process, to have this process driven by citizens. As hard as it is for those of us who stand in this assembly or who sit in this assembly and serve an elected office to recognize, there are some British Columbians who aren't spending their every waking hour thinking about what we do and how we do it.

An Hon. Member: No.

Hon. G. Campbell: That's true. But for us, what we want to do is try and engage those British Columbians — all British Columbians — in looking at this, because we have a gift here. We have a gift that those of us who were born in Canada or born in British Columbia sometimes take for granted. We have a gift where it is indeed the work of the ballot, the casting of that ballot, that can constitute the momentum for change, the catalyst for change, the catalyst for strengthening our social union here in this province, the catalyst for building the kinds of communities that we want and the vehicle for imagining a future and then bringing people together to pursue that future.

I've worked and lived in a country where indeed it was not the ballot that drove those changes. It was the bullet. I've lived in a country that saw changes in government that were carried out by coup, by military fiat. I've never even come close to thinking that would happen in Canada. We're fortunate to live in a country that does take the ballot and our democratic institutions seriously. Not just seriously — they're the very foundation of our culture, our beliefs, and what we can pursue and achieve as a country and as a province.

I was not, and the government was not, wanting to cast our citizens assembly in the former moulds that we may have had in the past where political interests — where a specific interest in a specific result — drove the decisions of the assembly. I should say again that I am proud that an assembly with this makeup is willing to say to citizens: "You decide."
There is no secret. We did particularly well in the last election with the given set of rules for electing MLAs in British Columbia. There is also no secret that I believe each member of this House is committed to strengthening this institution. I believe that by giving the people of British Columbia the chance to shape this institution, we will do just that.
In keeping our commitment to people, we said prior to the election that we believed the assembly should be selected like a jury. It should be randomly selected. It should be a selection process that reaches out to each part of this province and, indeed, is reflective of the people that live here in this province. Building on the foundation of Mr. Gibson's recommendations, our recommendation that you will see in the terms of reference says that we have asked the chief electoral officer to help guide a randomly selected citizens assembly.

First, let me say this: we all know in this House that every British Columbian who is eligible to vote and eligible to be on the voters list has not necessarily registered. I would like to tell the members of the assembly and the public today that we want to encourage that registration. We will try to encourage it to take place in ways that will build our voters list and make sure that as many people as possible are registered, that we at least give citizens the chance to register.

The chief electoral officer will then be asked to stratify a sample of names. That simply does this: it provides for an equal number of names from each riding. It will provide for an equal number of men and women. It will provide for a distribution that's reflective of the age of British Columbians. Anyone who is 18 years or over and on the voters list will be eligible. Again, we want our assembly to be reflective of the generations that live in British Columbia, of the regions that exist in British Columbia and of the interests that exist in British Columbia.

Interested persons will be able to attend local selection meetings. They will self-select. They will randomly select, but they will self-select. It is important for all of us to recognize that this is an act of true citizenship. It is an act that will require those who participate to become educated, to spend time in deliberation and in public hearings across the province. I believe that it's critical that they know both their obligations and their responsibilities, as well as the timetable for action that will be laid out for the citizens assembly.

We said that we wanted membership to be representative of the entire province. There is not a member in this House that doesn't recognize what an enormous place British Columbia is, how vast our province is and indeed how vast even regions within the province can be. In terms of meeting the needs of the regions of the people who live there, we wanted to be sure that there was broad representation from each part and each corner of the province. To achieve that, the terms of reference provide a large membership of two members for each of the electoral districts that serve in this province, for a total of 158 members plus the chair, which will make the citizens assembly 159.

It is important, I believe, for us to recognize that while Mr. Gibson recommended some top-up provisions, we felt the expansion of the committee provided for more representation and more opportunity for people throughout the province.

We said we would have a mandate to hold public hearings throughout B.C. That will take place. And again, I want to say this clearly to this House. We have recommended the appointment of a chair, and as you'll know from the second motion before the House, it is suggested that a special legislative committee be established to review that nomination from the government. Should that legislative committee unanimously support the chair, then we will ask the chair to look at how this process should work, how many meetings should take place and where they should take place. But the spirit and the intent of the government are clear, and the budget for the assembly is clear. We expect those meetings to be taking place throughout the province. It's important to allow the people of our province to have not just the oral opportunity but also the written opportunity to present to the citizens assembly. That is provided for in the terms of reference.

We said we wanted to ensure clear endorsement by the assembly. Now, those of us who have been involved in public life for some time know there's nothing that can take up more time — often for fewer results — than a constitutional debate, a debate about the ifs and buts and what-ifs and maybes that take place in the world we live in. I've experienced this at the local level of government, and I've seen it time and time again where, because there is no single decision that's made, there is never a decision to improve the system, if that is indeed what's necessitated and required in the judgment of the assembly.

We have specifically asked the assembly to recommend a specific change. If the assembly recommends a change by a majority vote of the assembly, that will require at least 80 members of the assembly to support it. If the assembly recommends a change, then that option will be submitted to a provincewide referendum on May 17, 2005, just like we said it would be.

The government wants to ensure that all British Columbians have an opportunity to vote before any change is adopted. We want to be sure any change that is adopted is truly endorsed by the regions of the province and the people of the province. We believe this is a fundamental and significant change, and we therefore have placed a double approval process in place.
First, the assembly must receive a 50-percent-plus-one approval rate from 60 percent of the ridings in the province. That's important, because at the end of the day we know we have to bring the whole province together as we make these changes, if indeed they should be recommended.

Secondly, this change will require 60 percent overall voter approval. There are some who have already suggested that that is too high an approval rating. Clearly, the government disagrees with that. We believe this is a significant change. It's a significant change that should require the kind of approval that says, indeed, a great majority of people in this province feel that they will benefit from this change — that they will benefit from this change, Mr. Speaker; not that we or any given political party will benefit from the change.

I believe this is a very important step. One of the critical keystones of this assembly's success will rest in the person of the chair. It was important, I believe, for the chair to truly guide the assembly as we move forward. As you know, the government has nominated Dr. Jack Blaney, the former president of Simon Fraser University, the current chair of the Fraser Basin Council, the man who was the driving force behind the dialogue centre at Simon Fraser University, which is internationally recognized as a centre for building learning and understanding and for decisive decision-making. Mr. Blaney is known not just as a conceptual thinker but as a consensus builder. I believe he brings significant talents to the onerous task that lies ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear about this. I certainly do not know what a citizens assembly will decide. I do know this — that given the opportunity, citizens will be creative, will be thoughtful, will be integrative, will concern themselves with our entire province, will concern themselves with how government truly can serve the needs and the ideas of British Columbians from every corner of this province.

I have confidence in the people of British Columbia. I have confidence that we have put forward before this House today a motion which will set in motion a true public debate, a true public discussion, a true public opportunity for learning about one of the critical parts of our lives: our democratic institution, our Legislature. This is a gift we've been given by previous generations. This is our opportunity to strengthen that gift. This is our opportunity to restore some of the confidence and trust that people should have in this great institution. This institution is not made up of us as individuals. Each of us has the opportunity to serve. Each of us is given the privilege of service when we come here.

I believe that in passing and supporting this motion, we will have exercised that privilege in a way that is exceptional, in a way that says we remember first and foremost that we are here at the service of the people of this province. There's no more important message that we could send.