Having achieved Responsible Government, now we need to get "Accountable Government"

"Accountable Government"

If first part of Canada's constitutional history was drive for responsible government - away from appointed colonial officials dictating government policy

(and too perhaps UK's -- in UK's case, drive was  for "constitutional monarchy") -

then the next part of our history has been and will be the drive for accountable government --

elected government accountable to the voter.

Goals of movement would be:

-each vote has same strength (unless some system will be devised where every vote can count, then getting having 80 or so percent effective is best we can do. Such is achieved by list PR and STV.)

-each substantial group has some representation

-majority of votes required to elect party or coalition that has majority of seats in the chamber

-sentiment of majority of voters is reflected by government policy.

sometimes campaign for accountable government is first directed at equal-sized districts.

in Britain use of both one- and two-seat districts in early 1800s

Chartists called for equal-sized districts, meaning each district would have same size of population.

the difference between one or two members being less important at that time than that each district would have thousands of voters and have about same population.

this was due to the existence of "pocket boroughs" where  less than 50 voters were electing one or two members.

the reform to abolish these was called for by the Chartists, who were not allowed to vote so perhaps may not have even noticed that some districts elected two while others elected one. 

(The Reform Act 1832, failed to extend the vote beyond those owning property)

the end of pocket boroughs was only achieved after Chartists were suppressed.

(Wiki "Pocket boroughs" -- "Significantly diminished by the Reform Act 1832, pocket boroughs were for all practical purposes abolished by the Reform Act 1867.")

(by the time Canada elections were given official formulation in early 1800s, equal-sized districts was basic, I think, but perhaps broken in many instances such as the Upper versus Lower Canada disparity.

Achieving "rep by pop" in 1867 Confederation allowed Ontario and Quebec to have equal-sized districts,

without Rep by Pop, some districts would have had to have differently-sized populations.

whether within each province, districts were actually equal-sized districts is open question.

Rep by Pop. preserved today to large degree (barring PEI and the Territories)

and relatively equal-populated districts are used, each electing one MP (again barring PEI and the Territories) and relatively equal-populated provincial districts each electing one MLA. although the winner in one district compared to another are elected with widely-varying number of votes.

Even while votes are unequal in strength, not having any vote at all was seen as an evil.

(Australian PR champion Catherine Helen Spence was not a strong campaigner for female suffrage seeing that until PR established, all that would be accomplished was that women voters would see their vote wasted just as much as men voters were already seeing theirs wasted.)

achievement of universal adult male suffrage in late 1800s (extended to many women in Canada in 1917/1921, in UK in 1918/ 1928)

(universal adult suffrage for citizens in Canada  finally achieved in 1960s or 1970s-- adult being defined as 18 or older was a separate reform)

1950s? (or earlier?) plural voting was challenged. 

Systems where some voters (such as property owners) had more votes than others was challenged.

1910s   movement turned to Direct Legislation - initiative, referendum and recall

(being re-tried today in BC, Alberta -- and NB?)

then usually movement was redirected to Electoral Reform and PR

-- adoption of Cumulative Voting in Illinois in 1871

-- adoption of Limited Voting in Toronto (a dead end?)

-- adoption of partial STV in Manitoba and Alberta.

PR coming to many European countries in early 1900s

(perhaps dead ends pursued -- Bucklin method (Cleveland), of Proxy Plan (Oregon 1909), open primaries, or IRV (today))

(I am not sure that Illinois's CV was not a dead end as it expired in illinois without growth to full PR))

===

PR means that the other reforms tried earlier were not so important.

with STV or list PR and Multi-Member Districts (sometimes already in use under Block voting), districting -- equal or otherwise -- not so important.

with gerrymandering being suppressed or rendered useless, with smoothing out the variation in districts' voter turnout rate, with each member in a district getting same or almost same number  of votes, much more equality in strength of vote.

although some votes still not being used to elect the first choice, but under STV being transferred to someone also preferred by voter.

under list PR, a vote being pooled and used to elect someone through party connection.

(open list PR vote being used to elect an individual candidate if possible. if not, then being pooled and used to elect someone through party connection.)

either way, under PR 80 percent or so of votes are used to elect someone, and each member is elected by about same number of votes  (effective votes divided by seat count)

hence guaranteeing that majority of members in chamber overall reflect sentiment of majority of voters overall (or at least majority of 80 percent of voters), 

although majority of members and voters is composed of adherents of various parties but in same proportions on each hand.

not a consensus where all opinions count

but much more fair than FPTP system where less than half of vote cast can elect majority of members in chamber, and where half or a third of votes cast are ignored and become merely demonstration of  "placebo voting."

FPTP system is where government is not accountable to the majority of voters.

and FPTP elects governments that are not accountable in the ways I am talking about.

===================================

In other words:

Responsible government must mean more than a 4.5 percent ruling block. But under FPTP, as few as 4.5 percent of voters is all you need to win a majority in an assembly -- hardly responsible!

Different parts of Canada achieved responsible government at different times. But responsible to whom?

Usually it is said that responsible government is achieved when an elected assembly, not appointed officials, controls the budget.

it is implied that a mere majority of the members in the elected assembly may control the budget and dominate the government. And that is fine -- what more can we expect except for deciding by consensus.

But is having an elected assembly enough?

Just casting votes is not enough.

Just electing a most-popular member in separate FPTP contests is not enough if it means a minute portion of voters can elect the majority that wields power in the assembly.

By saying elected assembly, we assume that most votes will be used to elect assembly members, and that about half of those votes will have elected the majority members.

This happens when FPTP is used if only two candidates compete, but as soon as you have three-corned contests, you can see perhaps as few as five percent of voters electing a group that can wield power.

I'll show you how this can happen --

100,000 voters (voters who actually vote)

say 25 districts with 4000 voters voting in each

Only two candidates in each -- winner has at least 50 percent plus 1 in each, so each winner elected with 2001 votes,

winners elected with at least 50,025 votes.

then a majority could be composed in the Assembly of just 13 members with a total of 25,013 votes (about a quarter of votes cast overall).

But if three-cornered contests occur in each district, the winner may have as few as 1/3rd of votes plus 1, or 1334 votes

bringing the winners' total to 33,350 votes overall.

then a majority could be composed in the Assembly of just 13 members with a total of 17,342 votes, about 1/6th of votes cast overall.

Where even more run, such as seven to nine candidates in a single-winner contest, as in many of the wards used to elect the Edmonton city council in 12 separate single-member wards,

the winner's share of votes may be as few as 30% in the district,

and then (using the format as above) the winners' share could drop to just 1200 votes in each district, with total winners' share of 30,000,

with the 13-member majority block elected by as few as about 16,000 votes, less than 1/6th of the votes cast.

Plus you have un-competitive contests where it is pretty much known whom will be elected, voter turnout drops and drops till you have as few as less than a third voting, same as the last Edmonton city election where only 30.41 percent of eligible voters voted.

With the lower turnout, and where only 1216 of the formatted 4000 voters in each ward actually vote, success in a ward could come with just 364 votes.

If that is done across the 25 districts, it would mean all winners receive a total of just about 9000 votes of the 100,000 eligible voters, or nine percent

with a majority in the Assembly composed of 13 members, and each member receiving just 4500 votes, a mere 4.5 percent of the 100,000 eligible voters would elect enough members to pass anything they wanted.

=========================================

Even at start, Responsible Government was not considered enough.

Responsible government, or "responsible cabinet government", as it is phrased in Colonists and Canadians, p. 238, was not considered enough back in the 1850s.

In the 1850s, reformers who were known as the Clear Grits called for a move beyond the British system of responsible cabinet government to a written constitution on U.S. elective lines, with manhood suffrage, vote by ballot, and other measures then considered decidedly belonging to an advanced democracy. ...

These proposals were explained in the Grits' journal William McDougall's North American newspaper in essays particularly addressed to the "Farmers of Canada." (p. 238)

[This McDougall is Sir William McDougall 1822-1905 who was later blocked from performing his official duties by Metis from entering Manitoba in the first Riel Rebellion. Thus he was in some ways similar to Edmonton's Frank Oliver - a reform-minded Liberal whose support for small farmers made him a threat to Metis and First Nations people.

see Montopedia blog "Pantheon of Reformers -- William McDougall ..."]

Manhood suffrage was achieved by 1867 (I think), at least for men older than 20, and secret voting (vote by ballot), by 1874. However Canada still does not have an elected Senate, and its constitution is only partially written (not that the U.S. Constitution, written as it is, is any great thing to copy!)

"By 1851 radicalism had created such a stir in politics that both Baldwin and Lafontaine retired in frustration., leaving the government to their chief lieutenants, Francis Hincks and A.N. Morin. (p. 238)

... George Brown was editor of the Toronto Globe, which he had launched in 1844 and had made into the strongest reform paper in Canada.

"Brown had vigorously opposed the Clear Grit movement chiefly because he believed in the superiority of the British parliamentary system over the U.S. political model."

But when government moved slowly in regard to voluntarism (no public support for the Church), he used the Globe to push the voluntaryist agenda and was soon elected to HofC to push for voluntarism there as an independent reformer.

"Brown and other Upper Canadian voluntaryists become strenuous opponents of Roman Catholic "aggression" in public affairs chiefly in regard to school legislation."

the U.C. moves against Roman Catholic education was countered by moves in Lower Canada in support of "Catholic zeal and incorporation of church bodies for teaching, charitable and hospital purposes." (p. 239-240)

About then too, rep by pop. became a demand of Ontario. When Ontario had had fewer people than Quebec, it was happy with each section having the same number of seats but now Rep by Pop looked good for Upper Canadians. (By 1867, Rep. by Pop. was achieved with Confederation.)

By late 1850s, Brown's voluntaryists, Clear Grits and eastern rouges of Lower Canada had joined in finding common ground in opposing the "Conservative regime's alleged misuse of power especially in regard to its aiding the Grand Trunk Railway extravagance and immorality." (p. 241)

=================================================