Canadian Electoral Reform

[jBirch]

So, we've often talked about Federal electoral reform in Canada, but what exactly do you think needs to be done? Which branches are broken, why, and what suggestions do you have to make them better?

For those wannabe Canucks out there, here's a brief synopsis of how our government works...

1) Party-based first-past-the-post elected Parliament.
2) Appointed-for-life senate
3) Appointed-for-life supreme court
4) Appointed-until-changed Monarch

[jBirch]

Here are my thoughts on the issue:

1) More interim electoral accountability for Politicians

- Add a form to taxes that allow you to specify preferences for where your tax dollars are to be allocated. If your money is allocated other then as you specify, it must be noted and reported.

2) Candidates are elected to vote in parliament based on first past the post. Second/third/fourth place candidates can recall an elected candidate based on the number of votes they received in the election.

- So...if you win > 50% of the vote, you are a "majority" representitive and can act with impunity. If you win < 50% of the vote, you are a "minority" representitive and subject to certain "confidence" votes by the other candidates who's votes count for whatever percentage they garnered. For example, Candidate A receives 40% of the vote, Candidate B receives 20%, Candidate C receives 10% and 10 other candidates receive the remainder. If a confidence vote is taken and Candidate A is not able to garner more then 50% of the candidate vote, then Candidate A "falls" and a By-Election is required. This makes it easier to recall an elected official.

This would be in addition to the regular petition getting process of removing a representative.

3) All senators renounce their party affiliation and adhere to a strict non-partisan code of conduct.

4) The Senate recommends to the GG which Judges to appoint, not the PM.

5) The GG is appointed by the Monarch on the advice of parliament, not the PM, for a term of 10 years. This means that an act must be introduced in the Lower House and passed through both houses. The Monarch is the only one able to grant Royal Assent to an act appointing a new GG. This can not be delegated to an outgoing GG.

6) An annual act of the Senate grants the GG's operating budget, not parliament.

7) An act of the Senate grants House of Commons pay. This is kinda done, but the bill originates in the Lower House and requires Lower House reading. This would remove the reading in the Lower House essentially putting sole discretion to pay representatives in the hands of the Upper House.

8) An act of the House of Commons grants the pay for Senators. This is already done, but requires reading in the Upper House. This would remove the reading in the Upper House requirement essentially putting sole discretion to pay senators in the hands of the Lower House.

James.

[kalivor]

Here are my thoughts on the issue:

1) More interim electoral accountability for Politicians

- Add a form to taxes that allow you to specify preferences for where your tax dollars are to be allocated. If your money is allocated other then as you specify, it must be noted and reported.

Oh, great. As everybody is going to write things like "Health Care, Military, war on drugs" or "legalising marijuana" and somesuch, this will likely result in a report for every single taxpayer, every single year.

Because people's priorities will miss things, such as paying the salary of the civil servants who have to write ridiculous reports. And nobody is going to earmark their tax dollars towards supporting Revenue Canada. Nevermind any spending on unforseen expenses between tax seasons (Tsunami relief? Hurricane Katrina relief? Well, it seems that no taxpayers forsaw these disasters ... millions of additional reports, please!)

Millions of stupid reports that are a waste of paper every year. How much money would this cost the government? How much work is involved? What would this actually change?

2) Candidates are elected to vote in parliament based on first past the post. Second/third/fourth place candidates can recall an elected candidate based on the number of votes they received in the election.

- So...if you win > 50% of the vote, you are a "majority" representitive and can act with impunity. If you win < 50% of the vote, you are a "minority" representitive and subject to certain "confidence" votes by the other candidates who's votes count for whatever percentage they garnered. For example, Candidate A receives 40% of the vote, Candidate B receives 20%, Candidate C receives 10% and 10 other candidates receive the remainder. If a confidence vote is taken and Candidate A is not able to garner more then 50% of the candidate vote, then Candidate A "falls" and a By-Election is required. This makes it easier to recall an elected official.

Ah, so now everytime there's something *close* to a majority, or a minority that is about to be subject to a confidence vote in parliament, there will be a series of recall elections across the entire country.

Every single riding across Canada has at least 4 candidates -- the Conservatives, Greens, Liberals and NDP all have candidates in every single riding. The vast majority of ridings will be subject to these recalls on the slightest motivation.

Just imagine the expense! We can have pretty much any candidate in a federal election forcing a new election in their riding at any time. I'm sure the politicians will do less grandstanding and more actual work if this is the case ... unpopular decisions that are good for the country? Not for us!

The other points are fine (though, in the end I don't think they'd amount to much more than a cosmetic change), but these two are expensive and counterproductive. They accomplish nothing, and at great expense. It would be more productive for the government to start a new gun registry.

[jBirch]

Oh, great. As everybody is going to write things like "Health Care, Military, war on drugs" or "legalising marijuana" and somesuch, this will likely result in a report for every single taxpayer, every single year.

Yup. At least then the government is officially aware of the issues of import to Canadians.

Because people's priorities will miss things, such as paying the salary of the civil servants who have to write ridiculous reports. And nobody is going to earmark their tax dollars towards supporting Revenue Canada. Nevermind any spending on unforseen expenses between tax seasons (Tsunami relief? Hurricane Katrina relief? Well, it seems that no taxpayers forsaw these disasters ... millions of additional reports, please!)

No, just general areas of priority. Perhaps the proposal could be implemented as a simple series of ranked areas. How would you prioritise Revenue Canada as it relates to Defense? Higher or lower? How would you prioritise the GG as it relates to Foreign Affairs?

Millions of stupid reports that are a waste of paper every year. How much money would this cost the government? How much work is involved? What would this actually change?

I don't have the costing involved but the bare minimums are the compilation of the forms, their entry into a database in a meaningful way and their preparation for Parliament. They would change government operations by perception. The Government would then have a yearly "customer satisfaction survey" on their performance that year and the guidance of the people of Canada in any future policy. If nothing else, it would provide fodder for Question Period.

Ah, so now everytime there's something *close* to a majority, or a minority that is about to be subject to a confidence vote in parliament, there will be a series of recall elections across the entire country.

Such is the way it goes. The problem with the status quo is that it does not represent the people adequately. A better representation would necessitate more instability into the mix. At least this idea would move some of that instability to a local level. And its much easier to track down the guy that caused the by-election then it is to track down the leader of the opposition.

Every single riding across Canada has at least 4 candidates -- the Conservatives, Greens, Liberals and NDP all have candidates in every single riding. The vast majority of ridings will be subject to these recalls on the slightest motivation.

So the point is that if you win your riding by one vote that you then are the representitive of that people inclusively? Bull. That's precisely the problem with the current system.

Just imagine the expense! We can have pretty much any candidate in a federal election forcing a new election in their riding at any time. I'm sure the politicians will do less grandstanding and more actual work if this is the case ... unpopular decisions that are good for the country? Not for us!

Yeah, it all comes down to money. Why not just reform government by collecting no taxes? Anyone that wants to participate in any government program can simply make a donation to one of the newly founded charitable organisations.

The other points are fine (though, in the end I don't think they'd amount to much more than a cosmetic change), but these two are expensive and counterproductive. They accomplish nothing, and at great expense. It would be more productive for the government to start a new gun registry.

And what are your proposals for reform? Nothing? Does Canada even need to reform Its electoral system?

James.

[kalivor]

So the point is that if you win your riding by one vote that you then are the representitive of that people inclusively? Bull. That's precisely the problem with the current system.

No, the point is that if, in a five-candidate race one person manages double his or her nearest rival ... they often still don't have 50% of the vote.

This would make every single seat in Canada eligible for recall. When the Conservatives tried to force an election last summer, they had to manage a vote of no confidence and they failed. In your proposed system, they would need no such things -- Harper need only to instruct his MPs across the country to try a recall vote.

A backdoor no-confidence vote, as it were.

To get an idea of how many candidates could be so recalled, I took a look at the 2004 results in Ontario ridings. I count 71 ridings in which the winner took less than 50% of the vote, and 36 ridings where they took more than 50% of the vote.

While some of these were very close (one had only a 100 vote margin), others were not (one candidtae won by over 10,000 votes, 1.7 x their nearest opponent, yet only managed 48% of the popular vote).

While I clearly miscounted (there are 106, not 107 ridings in Ontario), you can see the massive scale to which this could be put. To suggest that the leaders would have no say in whether or not their party tried a recall.

The end result would be a large number of recalls and by-elections at great expense. With two-thirds of the country's seats to choose from, the opposition would have a good number of seats to target in an attempt to wrest power away from the government in power.

And since when is unstable government preferable to a stable one? Do you look at places around the world with unstable political situations and say "golly gee! I envy them! I wish I lived there!"

Besides which, if someone wins by one vote, I'd rather not have the crazy candidate who manages 2 votes to be able to play a key role in recalling that candidate ...

Yeah, it all comes down to money. Why not just reform government by collecting no taxes? Anyone that wants to participate in any government program can simply make a donation to one of the newly founded charitable organisations.

You're a funny, funny man.

And what are your proposals for reform? Nothing? Does Canada even need to reform Its electoral system?

I'm not claiming that there are no problems with the electoral system. However, I don't have anything off the cuff to make a good reform. A good reform would:
(a) Not be prohibitively expensive.
(b) Make MPs more representative of the people they purport to represent.
(c) Not actually interefere with the governing of the nation.

Maybe if I investigated, and put some thought and time into it, I'd come up with something. However, I don't have time to do so ... I'll have to console myself with discussing others' ideas.

While your recall suggestion manages (b), elections are expensive, and if the majority of MPs could face recall on the whim of their political adversaries at any time ... well, it's difficult to believe that they wouldn't be constantly be making idiotic bills that tend to pop up pre-election.

I fail to see how adding a "priorities" section to taxation (or ceasing taxation) is an electoral reform at all. Your first section still makes it sound like the government would have to track the source and destination of every single tax dollar. I can imagine the cost of such a program to be a large percentage of that dollar.

[jBirch]

Good points, Kalivor.

You're banking on the opportunistic nature of politicians though in asserting that all candidates at risk, will be subject to a by-election. My contention is that this process is necessary for the people to reach consensus. If you have a hugely fragmented riding and one guy gets 11% of the vote (but that is more then anyone else) does that mean that 89% of the riding goes unrepresented? What checks and balances are in place to guarentee that that person responds to the other 89% who didn't vote for them?

About the recall mechanics in this case, only those seats at risk would be up for by election. Eventually, the people will either not care or pick someone to represent them. Constantly calling by-elections would be a bit of a suicide attempt by either party as the voter backlash would be vicious. I think in practice it would stabilise relatively quickly. Add to this the removal of non-confidence measures in the House and I think, it would work quite well.

The problem, as I see it with elections in Canada, is twofold:

1) people, in general, don't believe that their vote matters.
2) people, in general, don't believe that politicians actually represent them.

So the questions then are:

1) how to get people to feel that their vote means something (and so they will vote intelligently and proactively) and
2) how to get politicians to respond to every issue, and not just the issues of the people who got them elected, in a representitive manner.

My answer to 1) is that people must feel that the person in office is someone of their choosing, not someone chosen by a more politically active and resourceful neighbour. My answer to 2) is that the person in office must feel that the people elected a mouthpiece, not a ruler, who serves at THEIR whim. Fear does wonderful things to people in power, eh?

I'd also like to see why elections are so darned expensive. We are planning to spend $60 Million on this election and, from what I can tell, most of that is because the parties receive money from Ottawa. So if you want to make elections cheaper, make the damn parties pay for their own campaigning out of their own pocket.

On stability, you've got a choice: more accountability or more stability. You can't have both. If accountability is of increasing importance, then you have more elections. If stability is of increasing importance, then you have fewer elections.

Here's another proposal to whittle away at: every citizen that doesn't vote, votes by default for the Queen. If the Queen gets more votes then any other candidate, the riding is represented by HRM in parliament and She casts a vote for Her people as they direct Her to do. She, by default, is on every ballot. This satisfies a, b and c and gives a very experienced actor stewardship over the votes. It provides the protection and stability of a monarchy with the accountability of a republic.

James.

[Furry]

So, we've often talked about Federal electoral reform in Canada, but what exactly do you think needs to be done? Which branches are broken, why, and what suggestions do you have to make them better?

For those wannabe Canucks out there, here's a brief synopsis of how our government works...

1) Party-based first-past-the-post elected Parliament.
2) Appointed-for-life senate
3) Appointed-for-life supreme court
4) Appointed-until-changed Monarch

Before I reply to the idea as a whole I'd just like to point out a couple things.

1) Woot
2) Senators are no longer appointed for life, only until the age of 75, and they have to show up for work (this happened after some guy was in Mexico most the time showed up for work a couple times a year)
3) I think this is also only until 75, but I could be mistaken
4) The GG is appointed for 5-7 year terms, I think it's 5, Clarkson got extended because of the Minority.

I'll weigh in on the rest later, but I wanted to point that out first.

[jBirch]

Furry,

1) Ok.
2) Right. Figured it was minutae though.
3) Right. Figured it was minutae though.
4) MONARCH, not GG. The Canadian Monarch (QEII) was appointed by an act of parliament way back in 1867, believe it or not. It has been reaffirmed as recently as 1993. Though the status of the GG has been elevated to that of "Acting Monarch" by King George, the Canadian Monarchy itself still holds the power to revoke the use of the Great Seal of Canada and reassign it at their leisure (though it would be interesting to see what the parliamentary backlash would be if they decided to do so unilaterally). The GG is assigned a term of length customarily (but not necessarily) of 5 years. Shorter or longer terms are solely at the discretion of the Queen who traditionally acts on the advice of the Queen's Privy Council in Canada (whose head is the acting PM).

James.

[kalivor]

The problem, as I see it with elections in Canada, is twofold:

1) people, in general, don't believe that their vote matters.
2) people, in general, don't believe that politicians actually represent them.

So the questions then are:

1) how to get people to feel that their vote means something (and so they will vote intelligently and proactively) and
2) how to get politicians to respond to every issue, and not just the issues of the people who got them elected, in a representitive manner.

My answer to 1) is that people must feel that the person in office is someone of their choosing, not someone chosen by a more politically active and resourceful neighbour. My answer to 2) is that the person in office must feel that the people elected a mouthpiece, not a ruler, who serves at THEIR whim. Fear does wonderful things to people in power, eh?

I'd also like to see why elections are so darned expensive. We are planning to spend $60 Million on this election and, from what I can tell, most of that is because the parties receive money from Ottawa. So if you want to make elections cheaper, make the damn parties pay for their own campaigning out of their own pocket.

I'm going to ignore your strange Queen proposal (for now -- you're aware that Freddy Mercury is dead, right?), and instead only address the points above.

As to #1, your answer is unsatisfactory. Short of having only one candidate in an election, not everybody will have an elected leader of their choosing. Some people will vote for the loser. Why did the other person win? Likely because you have neighbours who voted the other way. Likely because other neighbours were more active and/or resourceful.

One of the new ways in which votes DO mean something more concrete, though, is that now every vote means money for the party being voted for. While you ask at the end for the parties to spend money out of their own pocket, I feel that tying votes to funding is a fantastic idea -- albeit one that requires the taxpayer to continue to fund political parties. Voting for a given party is akin to direting a few of your tax dollars to them, making your vote matter more, and giving a little bit of the directed tax dollars that you were arguing for earlier.

As for #2 ... well, I'm not sure that "fear" is the answer. It seems to me that a response to fear is overspending. Various parties are afraid of losing the election, so they promise a lot of spending. So much so that the Liberals accuse the Conservatives of not having enough money to fund their promised initiatives ... though the Liberals are making promises which are similarly expensive. Just look at budgets that appear heading into elections -- they try to give everybody some extra money, so that people are more likely to vote for the encumbants. Politicking and governing, unfortunately, don't go together well. The current system usually generates elections every 4 or 5 years, in which the encumbant can then run on their record. To have a constant threat of election just means that it's constantly politics and never governing ... which is an idea that doesn't sit well with me.

I also don't know what more can be done for elective representatives to better represent their constituents. If 45% choose a given candidate, with the remainder split between several ... aren't the views that the candidate ran their platform on generally representative of the people in their riding? Aside from abolishing the political party, or requiring that EVERY vote be a "free" vote (and I don't believe that either option would amount to much more than a cosmetic change, and if anything a less transparent view of political alliances and such) I'm not sure what can be done.

It IS important to have the ability to recall an MP -- I'm not sure what the rules are on this in Canada, at all. However, I would think it should require a sufficient number of voters petitioning the recall, followed by a vote. I don't think there's a convincing argument to place the power to recall an MP in the hands of the MPs political opponents. It strikes me as the wrong place for said power to be, particularly if you're concerned about the *voters* being properly represented.