eUpdate on the Court Challenge for Fair Voting by Fair Voting BC and Springtide Collective for Democratic Society The government is saying it will be filing its legal documents for the defence side in early spring 2022. It will be interesting to see what grounds the government can find to defend a system that produces - - one-party regional or provincial sweeps, with the votes cast by a third to half of the voters being disregarded (artificial regionalism) - wrong-winner elections overall. A party without the most votes getting majority of seats (or more seats than any other party) in the chamber (wrong-winner election) - the same party being represented again and again, and all others being never represented, for decades in a specific district, (which leads to low turn-out. A stark example is Drayton Valley-Calmar where in the 2008 provincial Alberta election more voters stayed home than voted -- turnout was only 48 percent. 10,128 voted; 10,826 eligible voters did not. Of those who voted, 4166 voters were ignored and only 5931 elected the district's one representative.) (one-party grip on the local seat) - election of local member by mere minority of voters As few as 29 percent of voters who vote see their votes go to elect the district member (minority rule) - people voting for someone they are ok with, not the one they most want to get in, in order to try to avoid vote-splitting that would produce election of someone they can't stand. (strategic voting) - people voting their whole lives and never seeing their votes used to elect someone. (voter frustration). The Court Challenge is the legal route, (probably) separate from the lobbying, the inside-parliament/CA route (PROC), and the NDP's just-get-her-done routes. (As well, there are probably other routes I don't know of.) It seems by next autumn judges will be mulling over the multiple, various ways that the present system produces dis-proportional misrepresentation and deciding if they legally infringe on our basic rights. We already know they do morally. Attached is CPCML report on the announcement which (indirectly) links to the affidavit lodged by the groups.
====================== October 14, 2021 Opposition to Outmoded First-Past-the-Post Electoral System Federal Government Finally Responds to Charter Challenge On September 29, 2023, Fair Voting BC and Springtide Collective for Democratic Society announced that the federal government has finally responded to a Charter Challenge of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system of elections they filed two years ago, on October 6, 2019. The government advised it will be filing its legal documents in early spring 2022. The case is expected to be heard in fall 2022.
The two organizations have set up a joint organization and website called Charter Challenge for Fair Voting (CCFV). Their application asks the Court for a one-year suspended ruling striking down sections of the Canada Elections Act and giving the Parliament one year to enact amendments. [More]
An expert will address two main issues -
(1) describing for the court what the main forms of voting systems are around the world, and
(2) outlining the advantages and disadvantages of each, particularly with regard to representation of citizens, political equality of voters, performance of government, and voter participation.
==========================================================
United Nations Human Rights Committee seems against FPTP
Carter Centre report on Libya's 2012 eleciton:
"Libya had obligations under international public law to ensure equal suffrage by according each voter and vote equal weight." (25)
... Footnote 25 -- U.N., United Nations Human Rights Committee, general comment no. 25, para. 21, stating that “The principle of one person, one vote must apply, and within the framework of each state’s electoral system, the vote of one elector should be equal to the vote of another.” From libya-070712-final-rpt.pdf (cartercenter.org)
The same U.N. law applies to Canada, I would think
so that seems clear -- according to U.N., FPTP must go.
=====================================================
Voting means electing - anyway, it should mean electing
In line with my idea that elections can be be looked at in three (or five) levels, I think the way we use the term voting is misleading.
Interestingly, this nomenclature discussion may also shed light on grounds for the court challenge
The 1982 Constitution says
Democratic Rights
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in any election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
4. [not about voting -- regarding terms of service of elected legislatures and Hof C]
Obviously this idea of "universal suffrage" is constricted by rule that only those 18 yoa or over can vote.
But if First Past the Post is voting system,
as STV is Single Transferable Voting (term does not mention election - only voting),
then voting is more than casting a vote but also electing members. So the 1982 Constitution when it gives citizens right to vote also could be read as giving them the right to elect.
for obviously what is good of voting, if it does not elect?
As all citizens do not vote despite what Act says, so of course all voters may not elect even if the Act says that is their right - but it must be shown that denying them that right stands up in court. the disenfranchisement of Minors is generally supported,
The effective disenfranchisement of Liberal or NDP voters in Alberta, and of Conservatives in cities does seem, in a different way, to be unfair.
Undeniably FPTP does deny a large part of voters the right to elect - in some ridings no one but a candidate of one specific party has held the seat for decades. in those ridings waste of votes is perennial and one-sided.
Undeniably FPTP does deny a large part of voters the ability to elect a representative - women, Natives, the young have not had due representation since forever.
So upon grounds of fairness but also "democratic rights"-wise it seems clear FPTP is not within acceptable grounds because in many cases voters cannot vote to elect.
Even equal-sized district is not foolproof at ensuring winners are elected with same number of votes. Not when only plurality is needed to win and not when there are as many wasted votes as there are, under FPTP.
======================================================================
Article by Van Geyn and Kinsinger defending FPTP from the court challenge, in which they imply that FPTP is not only constitutionally allowed but actually prescribed.
I responded with LTE:
In recent article “Opinion: Canada's electoral system may not be perfect - but it's perfectly constitutional", Christine Van Geyn and Kristopher Kinsinger seem to make the point that Canada has always used First Past The Post and that it was used when the BNA came into effect and when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982. Therefore, the writers say, the Constitution indicates that FPTP is not only perfectly constitutional but is also the only system that can constitutionally be used.
The authors though are wrong - First Past The Post - where you have a single winner in a single-member district elected through plurality - was not the only system used to allocate seats in the House of Commons nor in provincial legislatures even as far back as 1867.
FPTP was used so obviously it was constitutional in those darker days. But as several other systems have also been used instead, they too are constitutional. And as these other systems serve voters better, they should be used, instead of the now-much-despised FPTP.
It is well known that FPTP wastes votes. Sometimes as many as 82 percent of votes cast in a district are not used to elect the member under FPTP (see the 2014 Toronto city election). As this waste is not equally spread around, disproportionality is the usual result.
FPTP is not the only system that has been used in elections in Canada’s history. Multi-member districts have been used in every province. (In Quebec MMDs were used pre-Confederation.) Where multi-member districts are used, FPTP as we picture it today cannot be used. And a variety of systems were used in our history.
Back in 1867 most MLAs in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were elected in two- or three-seat districts. As of Confederation, the federal riding of Halifax had two seats and remained so until 1967.
The federal ridings of Ottawa, Hamilton and West Toronto were two-seat ridings in the early days.
After BC joined Confederation, its first provincial election saw only three elected in single-member districts through FPTP. Almost all its MLAs were elected in two-, three- or four-seat districts. A six-seat district came into use later, before MMDs were finally disbanded more than a hundred years later. Victoria was a two-seat federal riding for many years.
All PEI MLAs were elected in two-seat districts from the time it joined Confederation in 1873 to 1996. Prior to 1904, all its MPs were elected in two-seat ridings as well.
In most cases where multiple members were elected in a district, the voter was given as many votes as the number of seats to fill (Block Voting). This produced more votes to count and just as unfair results as under single-winner FPTP.
Toronto 1886-1890 used Limited Voting, where each voter could cast just two votes in a three-seat district. This elected a balanced crop of MLAs.
Each voter having just a single vote in a multi-member district is a simple recipe for fairness, especially if votes can be transferred as in Single Transferable Voting. STV uses multi-member districts and gives each voter just one vote and makes it a ranked ballot for added insurance.
STV was used in Alberta and Manitoba from 1920s to 1950s, perfectly constitutionally. In Edmonton, as just one example, STV was shown to produce much more fair and balanced representation than the Block Voting that came before it or the FPTP that followed.
Besides Block Voting, STV and Limited Voting, Canada has also seen the “post” system where multiple members were elected in a district but each seat was filled through a separate contest using either FPTP or single-winner preferential voting. Not recommended but also not FPTP as we now use it.
Federal elections have used only single-member ridings just since 1968. Provincial elections (as a whole) have used only single-member districts just since 1996. Many cities still use multi-member districts (and Block Voting) for municipal elections.
FPTP is certainly not the only voting system that is permitted under our constitution. Past experience has shown as well that it is not the fairest either.
==================
This LTE was based on these points:
Of course proportionalists disagree with the theme of the article but also it does have an historical error - in 1867 and in 1982 we did not have single-winner FPTP everywhere. It is not fact despite what writer says, that when the constitution (the BNA) was formulated, single-winner FPTP was our only electoral system, gifted us by the old country and never questioned. Multi-Member Districts were fairly common. (as I show below)
and MMDs generally mean the election system used is not single-winner FPTP. The most common other system used was Block Voting, still plurality but in multi-member districts, so not single-winner FPTP. Limited Voting, the Post system with FPTP, the Post system with IRV, and STV were also used -- all perfectly constitutional. Some were single-winner systems even in MMDs; some were multi-winner systems in MMD. They were not FPTP as we use it now. As of Confederation in 1867 or shortly thereafter, and as provinces and a Territory were brought into Confederation or shortly after that happened, voters voted in MMDs at both the provincial/territorial and federal levels. immediately in the case of NB, NS, BC, PEI and NL soon (by 1890) in the case of NWT and Ontario. prior to 1910 in case of Yukon and Alberta prior to 1915 in case of Manitoba prior to 1921 in case of Saskatchewan. Only in Quebec (and Nunavut) have voters never since 1867 voted in MMDs. Only in Nunavut have voters never ever voted in MMDs. In fact, in 1867, Quebec and Ontario had only recently stopped their previous long-time use of MMDs, most of the provinces that joined Confederation in the 1800s - NB, NS, PEI, BC - used MMDs in their first provincial elections after joining Canada, and some continued to use MMDs and Block Voting into the 1900s, a couple right almost to the 21st Century. even during time when the Constitution was repatriated and made our own in 1982.
Even back in 1800s or at leat prior to WWI, both Territories at the time (NWT and Yukon) used MMDs in their elections. As well, starting in 1867 some federal ridings were multi-member and therefore did not use FPTP. (see below) By the constitutional electoral law, any system is constitutional (this is a guess on my part) but by the laws of political equality and social justice, which surely are part of the constitution, not all systems "are created equal." in 1867 two of the four original provinces were using MMDs. (Ontario and Quebec had recently stopped their use of MMDs.) BC, PEI , NL used MMDs when they joined later by 1900 Ontario, NWT had experience of using MMDs. (ON used MMDs again, 1914-1926.) Alberta and Sask after being hived off of NWT in 1905 soon used MMDs. Alberta used at at least one MMD in every election between 1909 and 1955. By 1914 Manitoba had MMDs
here's the district situation at date of Confederation (or before)- Original join-ers Quebec/Canada East (MMDs prior to 1861) (SMDs 1861 to Confederation) SMDs after Confederation Ontario/Canada West (MMDs prior to 1861) (SMDs 1861 to Confederation) SMDs until 1886 when Toronto became a three-seat district. (Ottawa became MMD also) NB the MLAs, of which a majority voted for NB to join Confederation, had been elected in 1866 in five 4-seat districts, one 3-seat district and nine two-seat districts. Saint John City (a prov district) elected two members from 1795 to 1973 NS 1864 the MLAs who would decide on Confederation were elected in 1864, mostly in MMDs of two or three seats each, some in SMDs. 1867 most MLAs were elected in two-seat districts and there were two three-seat districts. ======= some federal ridings soon were MMDs, some as soon as the province in which they were located joined Confederation: Halifax in NS was two-seat district as of time NS joined Confederation (Halifax riding being a two-seat district is right in the BNA Act) (Cape Breton and Pictou soon became MMDs too), Halifax stayed an MMD until 1966 St. John City and County in NB became two-seat district shortly after NB joined Confederation, stayed an MMD until 1896
Ottawa and Hamilton, in ON, became two-seat district shortly after ON joined Confederation (West Toronto soon followed), Ottawa stayed an MMD until 1933 Victoria in BC was two-seat district as of time BC joined Confederation; stayed an MMD until 1904 the three ridings in PEI were two-seat district as of time PEI joined Confederation, stayed MMDs until 1896 (the Queen's riding was an MMD from 1904 to 1966) =========== Later join-ers to Confederation (date of joining in brackets): BC (1870) first election elected almost all its members in MMDs. mostly 2-seat districts but also three-seat districts and one 4-seat district. about 25 percent of the MLAs would be elected in MMDs in each election until 1990 NWT (1870) Qu'Appelle, Edmonton, Prince Albert and Calgary elected two members in an election or two in the 1880s. (two parts of the NWT, Alberta and Sask, became provinces in 1905: first used SMDs, but Edmonton and Calgary went to two-seat districts in 1909. Sask used MMDs starting in 1920) Manitoba (1871) used only SMDs until 1914. PEI (1873) elected all its members in MMDs until 1996 NFLD and Lab (1949): three 2-seats districts (and some SMDs) in 1949 and 1951. NEWFOUNDLAND from its start as a colony with representative government Newfoundland had MMDs. 15 members elected in 9 districts, then in 1855 29 members elected in 15 districts. 1946 National Convention members to decide on Confederation or not: delegates were elected in two three-seat districts in St. John, a two-seat district in Harbour Main, a two-seat district in Grand Falls, and some SMDs. so you see, as of Confederation in 1867, and as new provinces and a Territory were brought into Confederation or shortly after that happened, voters voted in MMDs at both the provincial/territorial and federal levels. immediately in the case of NB, NS, BC, PEI and NL soon (by 1890) in the case of NWT and Ontario. prior to 1910 in case of Yukon and Alberta prior to 1915 in case of Manitoba prior to 1921 in case of Saskatchewan. Only in Quebec have voters never since 1867 voted in MMDs. Only in Nunavut have voters never ever voted in MMDs.
In 1982, at the time the Constitution was being patriated, PEI and BC were both using MMDs, perfectly constitutional. So I hope that makes it clear that single-winner FPTP in single-member district is not the only way Canadians have voted since Confederation, and that FPTP/SMD is not the only way of voting that the Constitution allows.
==========================================================
Further discussion:
Van Geyn and Kinsinger said in their article that FPTP is constitutional.
You can take this two ways:
it is constitutionally allowed
it is constitutionally required.
obviously it is allowed -- it has been used to elect every member in each election since 1970, but was not so universally used in fed elections before that time.
definitively single-winner FPTP is not constitutionally required.
Halifax for a hundred years elected two MPs through Block Voting, and ten other ridings had two MPs for some period of time.
===============================
Comments