Several options come to mind of how to provide fair representation to Indigenous voters in Canada and in Alberta. One is to copy the Maori electorate districts used in New Zealand. Another is non-contiguous districts composed of Native reserves. Another is a system of guaranteed seats allocated as part of a general election. Another is the filling of separate Indigenous seats added after the main district election is conducted. Another is like the Maori electorate elections but held at-large with no districts, sort of a top-up of Indigenous seats.
Of them all, I prefer the system where separate seats are filled after the main district elections are conducted, which I have named the "Indigenous seat" system. Unlike the other systems, it does not require special districts, special ballots or special counts. Only careful use of the polling stations already in use now.
(This topic is discussed later in a different Montopedia blog:
https://montopedia.wixsite.com/montopedia/post/indigenous-representation-in-canada-how-will-they-get-it)
Maori electorate districts used in New Zealand
In another blog, I recounted how a Maori MP fought the dress code of the New Zealand Parliament in 2021 and won.
It may be interesting to learn that the Maori MP in that case was Rawiri Waititi, a Maori Party MP. He was elected to represent Wairiki, one of seven electorates, or seats, set aside for people elected by Maori voters across the country. That is, his seat is part of an electoral system separate from the main district electoral system. The whole country is districted into seven Maori districts (separate from the way the country is divided into 65 electorate districts for the non-Maori voters). To vote in the Maori districts for Maori members, you must be registered on the Maori roll.
These district systems are part of New Zealand's Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system, where after the district elections (of all types) are held, some top-up MPs are added to create fairness at the party level.
Meanwhile, Canada, and Alberta and the other provinces, have accorded the Native portion of its population much less than the two percent or so that it is/was due.
I have not seen info on the level of under-representation so here is a rough estimate.
The Wikipedia article "List of indigenous Canadian politicians" (as of Feb. 2021) lists a relative mere smattering of Indigenous politicians:
In the House of Commons, only 67 times was a seat filled by an Indigenous person. HofC seats were up for election about 8000 times (arrived at by multiplying 33 elections by an average of 250 seats/election).
Mathematically this is presented thusly:
House of Commons 67 out of approx 8000 total seat/elections
(range of seats per election (180 to 338) X 33 elections).
For the largest provinces, here's the equivalent figures for Indigenous elections to a seat:
BC Legislature 20 out of approx 2100 seat/elections
(range of seats (13 to 87) X 42 elections)
Alberta Legislature 15 out of approx 1650 seat/elections
(range of seats (35 to 87) X 30 elections
Saskatchewan Legislature 26 out of approx 1200 seat/elections
(13 Ind. politicians X est. two victories each)
(range of seats (25 to 61) X 30 elections
Manitoba Legislature 48 out of approx 1600 seat/elections
(23 Indigenous politicians plus Edith Rogers (1920 X est. two victories each)
(range of seats (22 to 57) X 42 elections)
(Edith Rogers was Metis but is not listed as Indigenous in the list of 23)
Ontario Legislature 10 out of approx 4200 seat/elections
(range of seats (82 to 124) X 42 elections
Quebec Legislature 2 out of approx 4000 seat/elections
(range of seats (65 to 125) X 42 elections
and so on.
You get the picture from these broad strokes.
This was far less what the Indigenous people were due. Currently they make up five percent of the population. (Eight percent of those under 14 are of Indigenous description.)
At the current proportion, in the six provinces from Quebec west, Indigenous people were due a seat 725 times out of 14,500 and took a seat only 130 times.
To ensure at least a few voices directly representing Indigenous voters in the House of Commons and in each legislature, Canada and each province could ensure Indigenous representation by reforms directed to that aim.
These could take these forms:
The Maori electorate model -- Canadian Indigenous Electorates
For federal elections, Canada could establish a seat or two in each province set aside for those elected by Indigenous voters. Treaty status or membership in a Metis association could be criterion to vote in such elections. Residence on a reserve would be easy to use as criterion. Perhaps there is equivalent for Inuit.
In both world wars, Alberta had special seats elected by those serving in the armed forces so we have been done that kind of thing before.
Non-contiguous districts
Or Indigenous representation could be provided in Alberta by drawing an electoral district composed just of the reserves dotted across each province.
Say, give one or two seats for reserves north of Edmonton (Cree, etc. country) and one or two for reserves south of Edmonton (Blackfoot, etc. country). Possibly Indigenous voters outside reserves could vote in these elections as well. This would provide a voice for those usually ignored and recognize the presence of the third leg that Canada was built on, alongside constitutional safeguards for the English and the French.
Britain has used districts composed of a string of different places not geographically connected so that has been done before in our British parliamentary tradition. These were the old districts of boroughs, collections of small towns in Scotland or Wales, uniform in interest but not contiguous in territory. As well, the "Wigan Rural District" in England, in use 1894-1974, was made up of two or more non-contiguous parts, for example.
And in fact Nova Scotia's 2018 electoral district commission was given scope to form non-contiguous districts if desired. (Jean Laroche, "New Bill means culture and language could help shape N.S. riding boundaries", March 2018)
The N.S. government's Keefe Report seriously considered it as a solution to the need to provide representation to the Acadian presence, up till then mostly disenfranchised due to its scattered geography.
James Bickerton, in examining the commission's work ("THE RIGHT TO FAIR AND EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION: ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSIONS IN NOVA SCOTIA" (available online)), had this to say -
"...[One] approach would be to recommend a major modification to the electoral boundaries of one or more constituencies, with the intention of not merely restoring but enhancing effective representation for the historic minority in question, primarily by encapsulating previously excluded individuals or communities.
This approach was contemplated by the Keefe Commission when it suggested the possibility of one or more non-contiguous ridings that would link together two or more "islands" of minority population.
The most obvious situation to which the third (non-contiguous) approach might be applied is the Acadian population on Cape Breton Island, which is divided between two main communities far removed geographically from one another: Isle Madame (and its environs) and Cheticamp (and its environs). While the former constitutes the Acadian core of the former protected riding of Richmond, the Cheticamp region (defined here as north of Margaree Harbour and south of Cape Breton Highlands National Park) has always been included within the constituency of Inverness, with its overwhelmingly non-Acadian population.
Merging these two regions to create a majority Acadian voter base would be a radical departure from the tradition of geographically contiguous ridings, the universal norm in countries utilizing the single member, simple plurality (First Past The Post) electoral system. [actually the United Kingdom's FPTP system used non-contiguous districts at one time - ]
Should such a change be proposed by the EBC, it should expect a strong reaction from the public since one community interest and identity (shared by Inverness County residents) would be ‘sacrificed’ to another (Acadian heritage). Even the Director of the FANE, though lamenting the exclusion of the Cheticamp region from ‘protected district’ status, objected to the non-contiguous approach in her submission to the Keefe Commission.
On the other hand, besides their ethno-linguistic and cultural affiliation, the two Acadian communities on Cape Breton also share a common interest in that the predominant local industry in both cases is the fishery. Regardless, finding a way to include the Cheticamp region within an exceptional electoral district would be the best way of actually enhancing effective representation for Acadians qua Acadians...."
Guaranteed seat system
Bickerton also mentioned a different way to ensure representation of Acadians --
"Yet another option is to revert to the old tradition of a dual-member constituency, but with the stipulation that one of the two elected representatives be a French-speaking Acadian; in effect, a designated Acadian seat within a dual-member riding. (It would be the responsibility of the parties to nominate two candidates each; voters would elect two representatives, one of whom would be from a list of Acadian candidates.)..."
This reminds me of the kind of guarantee that was used in old Edmonton elections to ensure southside representation, although there was never any rule that a party had to nominate a southside (read Acadian) candidate. If a party wanted to miss out on a chance at the guaranteed seat while still running for the northside (read non-Acadian) seats, it was their look-out.
And in fact in the Edmonton case there were never two separate lists of candidates south and north side -wise. The usual minimum to be elected from the southside was two but if more were elected, that was fine.
Like the Bickerton plan, both northsiders and southsiders voted on which southside candidate would be elected. There were not two separate elections. but unlike Bickerton plan there was also no control on how many southsiders would be elected, as I said. (Sorry for repeat!) If three southsiders were liked by the most voters north or side side, they would be elected. Why should voters be stopped from voting for whom they prefer?, was the reasoning.
Interestingly this is the Maori electorates turned upside down.
In the NZ Maori districts, voters have to be Maori but candidates can be anything.
In Edmonton's old elections and the Bickerton suggestion for NS, the successful candidates taking the guaranteed seats would have to be of the type (southside Edmonton or Acadian) while the voters could be anything.
The first gives more liberty to voters.
The second ensures representation of the type of voter but the representatives themselves are elected (chosen) wholly or partly by people not belonging to the type.
The second would look distinctly perverse in New Zealand -- if whites would help choose the Maori seats. While in old Edmonton it did not seem so odd for northsiders to help elect southside candidates.
All in all, the NZ model seems better of the two, although requiring checking of more IDs than a system where you only have to determine candidates' eligibility for the guaranteed seat.
A "Southside seat" system -- southside candidates elected by southside voters
And in fact it would not have been so difficult to adopt a combination of both the NZ model and Bickerton's Acadian suggestion to fill Edmonton's old guaranteed southside seats.
The vote tallies from all the polling stations on the southside only could have been amassed and the two most popular southside candidates elected. Thus, southside candidates elected by southside voters.
Then all the remaining votes from across the whole city amassed to see who would be elected overall, which possibly would elect more southside candidates if that was the choice of the voters.
I am not sure if anyone analyzed the city election results to see if the two southside candidates most popular on the southside were reliably elected under Edmonton's halfway system.
Such a system as I suggest would use our pre-existing multitude of geographically-placed polling stations and dedicated voters' lists, one for each polling station. These geographical polling stations could be used to establish basis for Indigenous representation, using reserves.
This is how such a system could be used for Indigenous representation in Canada.
The "Indigenous seat" system
Votes cast in reserves or in special voting stations set up to serve (only) Indigenous voters would be counted, and the totals amassed across the Indigenous voting polls calculated. Once the main district elections are resolved, the two most popular Indigenous candidates who were not elected in the main district elections would be declared elected.
Indigenous candidates elected by Indigenous voters equals Indigenous representation.
It does not require special districts nor special ballots nor special counts. Only careful use of the polling stations already in use now.
This seems imminently do-able but another option comes to mind.
Both in old Edmonton elections and in Bickerton's Acadian suggestion, multi-member districts were/would be used.
To achieve indigenous representation in Alberta, if we don't like
- a separate electoral district system just for Indigenous voters (like N.Z.'s Maori seat system) or
- non-contiguous districts or
- the use of multi-member districts with guaranteed minority representation in some places and not in others (as in the Bickerton guaranteed-seat suggestion), or
the "Indigenous seat" system that I have presented,
then here's a different choice for Alberta --
Elect our same number of MLAs in single member districts (although STV at least in city -wide multi-member districts would be better!)
And add a separate election of two Indigenous seats.
A separate election of two Indigenous seats
A separate election of two Indigenous seats would be conducted at the same time as the main election. In this, a voter with Indigenous credentials would cast a single vote for his or her preference off of a slate of Indigenous candidates already running in the election (anywhere in the province or country). (The ballots for this election would be of different colour to make sorting easier.)
This is like the Maori elections but conducted at-large, without the province or country being divided into districts.
The most-popular Indigenous candidates who were not elected in the main district elections, equal to about two percent of the overall seat count, would be declared elected.
STV could be used to provide more fairness when filling these seats
With single voting, no one Indigenous voting block could take all the seats, unless having a massive majority.
The system puts no ceiling on Indigenous representation - only a floor, a minimum.
In both this system of a separate election just described and in the "Indigenous seat system" described earlier, you add "top-up" Indigenous seats.
Top-up Indigenous seats may lead to at-large pro-rep top-up
The top-up seats used to create Indigenous representation may lead to the creation of a broader top-up where for example 25 seats would be added, allocated based on parties' vote tallies overall. This would ensure that each party that has at least 4 percent of the vote would have at least one seat.
This minimum assured representation is not the case under our present First Past The Post system.
Here are some failings of the FPTP system in Canada's history:
The UFA got 11 percent of the vote in 1935 and no seats.
The Alberta Party got 10 percent of the vote in 2019 and no votes.
The Progressive Conservative got 29 percent of the vote in 1987 in New Brunswick and took no seats. The Liberals with only 60 percent of the vote took all the seats.
The examples go on and on.
But if we start to think about the unfairness of whole races and Nations being denied any representation, then we can progress to how whole political parties are being denied the same. And visa versa.
But hopefully we can progress toward change in both situations through electoral reform - to achieve proportional representation along ideological and racial lines.
Thanks for reading.
===========================================================
Comments