March 17, 2024 FVC and Anita Nickerson hosted webinair
"Dennis Pilon on electoral reform - lessons learned and reasons for hope"
here are some points I got:
since 2000 there have been many moves towards electoral reform:
2 Citizens Assemblies BC ON
BC Citizens Assembly (2004) called for STV
ON Citizens Assembly(2006) called for MMP
10 legislative efforts Canada 2, PEI 2, NB 2, Qu 3, Yukon
[most recent was House of Commons voting against establishing a federal-level Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform on Feb. 7, 2024]
7 referenda BC 3, PEI 3, QU
(two resulted in majority in favour of alternative system. both happy results were over-ridden by government)
two multi-party agreements BC, QU
But so far,
none have produced actual change on the ground in the form of electoral reform (4:32)
Where does Canada stack up to other countries?
Where does Canada of today compare to Canada of 20 years ago?
[About 107 countries in world use PR to elect some or all of their national members.]
in almost all cases PR was achieved after a long process of advocacy, mobilization, agitation.
for example, Germany formed up as a country in 1870 and despite almost immediate agitation for voting reform did not get PR until 1919.
[New Zealand held two referendums before finally getting PR (MMP) in 1993.
The 1904 book The Story of New Zealand included a section on "proposed governmental changes" that included call for P.R. and that was published back in 1904.
That is not to say that we are where NZ was in 1904.
Quite the contrary -- a high-profile Canadian MP, Richard Cartwright, put forward a motion to use STV in federal elections -- back in 1887.
So we are likely closer to the successful end of his -- now our -- campaign than we are to its beginning.
Since the year 2000, five provinces - containing more than two-thirds of Canadians - have been involved in the PR moves listed above.]
Pilon reported that the level of knowledge on elections is much higher than it was 20 years ago.
the abbreviation "P.R." is not just assumed to be "Public Relations" anymore.
Activists know more about PR,
the public knows more, ...
[some of Pilon here and some of me:
we may have to wait for an accidental opportunity to pop up that will push even many of those opposed to see the wisdom of adopting PR, and if we are ready and have laid our groundwork well, we might have success that way.
Such happened in Winnipeg in 1920 - due to social friction aroused by the General strike. PR was seen as a good way to calm the waters.
Such happened in New Zealand when a government official mis-read his speech notes and promised a referendum - but the fact he addressed PR at all was due to the strong PR campaign.]
When confronted by calls for PR
government first try to ignore it
then ridicule it
then try to distract or misdirect the call by steering it in direction of Alternative Voting, or by making promises that are never fulfilled, etc.
People think First Past The Post is so simple and so transparent but when Doug Ford turned 40 percent of the vote into 63 percent of the seats, people have to admit it is not simple or transparent.
Should we choose a single PR system to push?
Dennis: "in terms of what most people are doing in politics, there is not much difference in what system you adopt."
[most people do vote for a party even if they mark their ballot for a candidate.]
the goals of PR can be expressed as:
- breaking phony majority governments
- forcing governments to be composed of multiple parties so parties have to work together [a bit editted of how Dennis said it]
- creating a competitive system that will allow people, when they choose differently, to do so and by doing so, affect the balance of power that exists in our legislative system. [differences in how votes are cast should be reflected in how the seats are won]
every PR system [STV, list PR, MMP, RUPR, etc.] does those things
[the effect of districts, wasted votes, etc. may affect degree to which party proportionality is produced, but those three basic things are achieved in any fair voting system that produces minority government reflecting votes cast/reducing number of wasted votes.]
Dennis: "how [those goals] get done - there's lots of different ways to do it. But the public is not going to get into the minutia and pulling them in is a pretty good way of turning them off."
Anita added that in the 15 years she has been active in the PR movement she has seen that "the more we are explaining, the more we are losing basically."
[the 2004 BC referendum was simple - FPTP or STV - and STV passed by a majority.]
Anita said FVC has switched tack to call for Citizens' Assembly not because CA is a direct route to PR but because even to get that, means parties must negotiate and work together.
CA is not a divisive issue compared to ER geeks debating their pet systems...
Dennis agreed -"focus your main message on results. People care about performance. people care about the results. if we switch, what will we get?
Our election system is producing these kind of results generally and that is what people say they don't like. And PR systems produce these kind of results. Do you like that?
Talk about results - get concrete about the kind of things that PR countries produce. And that is how you get them interested and get them away from the minutia questions, and get them more interested in the results they might get from change."
Anita said she agreed 100 percent - people care about outcomes.
[personal note: That is why I talk about multi-member districts where fair voting is used (single voting/STV or list PR) and no one party can take all the seats in the district. that means that no party can take all the seats in a province. One party taking all the seats in a district or province is pretty much the worst result democratically.
According to what Dennis said, the way I am presenting my case is too technical.]
==========================================
Comments