This electoral reform blog has now moved to "Make Votes Equal." See link in message

This electoral reform blog has now moved to "Make Votes Equal." Click here to go to "Make Votes Equal."

Two Types of False Democracy (Sharing a Graphic)

Here I would like to share a graphic (free) for anyone who wants to use it. I call it "Two Types of False Democracy"

A False First Choice Majority (Sharing a Graphic)

Here I would like to share a graphic (free) for anyone who wants to use it. I call it "A False First Choice Majority"

Majority Mask (Sharing a graphic)

Here I would like to share a graphic (free) for anyone who wants to use it. I call it "Majority Mask."

Letter to Trudeau - Dec 27 2015

Date here

Greetings Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (cc Liberal House Leader Dominic LeBlanc, Minister for Democratic Institutions, Maryam Monsef, MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith)

Thank you for promising to “make every vote count” in future elections.

**Which voting system do I recommend to make every vote count?:

Both I, and my local Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith(1), recommend the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system … with open lists.                            Short Definition of MMP: We still elect local MPs. Voters unrepresented by the local results top them up by electing regional MPs. The total MPs match the vote share.

**Addressing your concerns on the importance of citizens and geography:

In December 2015, you expressed concern about any voting system which would “[disconnect] any MP from specific groups of citizens - or geographic location.” The open lists characteristic of this particular type of MMP system addresses both of those concerns:

1.    Open lists force all candidates to be elected by citizens of that region. In that way, they are not like the closed lists used in some other countries (ie. they are not party appointments in which the voter for that party has no choice.) Even the nomination of such candidates could be done through a democratic process within the region they are applying to represent.

2.    Open lists of regional candidates are attached to specific geographic locations. In fact, a total of 27 such regions across Canada are suggested for this particular system by Dennis Pilon, professor of political science at York University (2).

**Ontario voters have already said that Open Lists are crucial:

MMP (3), and specifically Open List MMP (see footnote 4), was recommended by the Law commission of Canada in 2004. But in 2007, unfortunately Ontario voters were presented with something that did not follow that advice from the 2004 Commission. In 2007 the reason Ontario voters rejected MMP was largely due to the fact that it was not the Open List type of MMP. Therefore open lists are crucial.

**Proven track records of the MMP aspect, and Open list aspect:

1. MMP is already used by the several successful democracies including Germany, New Zealand, Scotland and more.

2. Open lists are already used by several successful democracies including Japan and more.

3. Open list MMP, in particular, is used in Bavaria, a state in Germany.

**Making every first vote count

To “make every vote count” in a more accurate way, it’s important to try to, as much as possible, “make every first choice vote count.”  If every first choice vote doesn’t count, then we’ll continue to have false majorities in the future –just like we had with the old First Past the Post system.

To truly have every voter’s voice represented in Parliament, it’s important that the end product of an election be an accurate undiluted reflection of the full spectrum of Canadians. “Undiluted accuracy” means not diluting any Canadian’s voice by forcing them to accept their second or third choice with a voting system which relies too heavily on ranked ballots.

I would rather have a future filled with coalition governments which are accurate reflections of the full spectrum of Canadians --rather than have a future filled with governments which claim to represent a majority of Canadians but whose claim is not genuine because it relies too heavily on some second and third choices.  Coalition governments will have a genuine undiluted strong mandate to cooperate; and cooperation is exactly what the diversity of Canada needs.

**Why no referendum is needed now, … and when it would be needed

Because of the results of the 2015 election, no referendum is needed to go ahead with electoral reforms: A total of 62.56% of voters voted for parties which campaigned on a promise that they will “make every vote count”: Liberals (39.47%), NDP (19.71%), Green (3.45%). This is already a substantial majority mandate to go ahead with your plan to make every vote count.

In the history of Canada, a referendum was never used in 1918 to give women the vote, nor to give First Nations people the vote, nor to lower the voting age from 21 to 18, nor to remove the property ownership requirement for voters.

There is already a precedent for a provincial govt in Canada changing the voting system without a referendum: This happened in BC in 1950 and 1951.

If there is a lot of pressure to hold a referendum, I suggest waiting and having it held after we have tried proportional representation for 4 or 8 years, but not before. Why? Because then more people will know the practical aspects of what they are voting for or against. Right now, not enough people are fully informed on the practical aspects. Besides, in the future, if people want to switch back to the old system, they can elect a government that runs on that platform and does that. There was already a precedent for this in 1950 and 1951 in BC.

Your plan to “make every vote count”  is also supported by ten Canadian Commissions, Assemblies and Reports that have recommended proportional representation since 1984. (see below)

Please let me know what you think all of the above, thanks.

Sincerely, 

Your name here.

Further reading:

http://wilfday.blogspot.ca/2010/04/mmp-made-easy.html

http://fairvote.ca/

http://wilfday.blogspot.ca/

Footnotes:

1. My local Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith recommended the Open List Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system at an all-candidates meeting on Oct 15, 2015 when there was a question from constituents.

2. See explanatory video for MMP at these two links: http://campaign2015.fairvote.ca/suggested-videos/  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3guVBhKmDc

 

3. In 2004, the Law Commission of Canada recommended this for Canada: a mixed member proportional system, like Scotland's and Germany's. We still elect local MPs. Voters unrepresented by the local results top them up by electing regional MPs. The total MPs match the vote share in the region. The majority of MPs are elected locally, and additional MPs are elected to represent under-represented voters and "top-up" the local results

.

4. Regarding open lists, page 105 of the Law Commission Report said: "Based on the feedback received during our consultation process, many Canadian voters would also most likely desire the flexibility of open lists in a mixed member proportional system. In essence, allowing voters to choose a candidate from the list provides voters with the ability to select a specific individual and hold them accountable for their actions should they be elected."

ADDENDUM:

Ten Canadian Commissions, Assemblies and Reports that have recommended proportional representation since 1984:

1984	Prelude: Quebec - 1984 The first such report was when René Lévesque decided in 1981 to introduce proportional representation for Quebec, after four elections had produced odd results. In 1984 the Electoral Representation Commission (an agency that reports to the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec) tabled a report recommending that the first-past-the-post system be replaced by a voting system that would allow all Members to be elected proportionally. The PQ caucus decided not to proceed. However, ever since then, many people in Quebec have wanted to revive Lévesque’s democratic legacy.
2004	1. The Law Commission of Canada - 2004 The independent Law Commission of Canada conducted a three-year study on electoral reform. It involved 15 public consultations, ten research papers, and 16 meetings and panels. In 2004 they delivered a 209-page Report recommending a made-in-Canada system. It recommended a mixed system quite like that of Scotland’s Parliament. A majority of MPs will still be directly elected in local single-member ridings accountable to them. At least a third of MPs will be elected from regions to “top-up” the local results, so that the overall result reflects the share of votes cast for each party. You have two votes: one to simply choose your local MP, and one for your regional MP which counts as a vote for the party you want in government. Unlike Scotland, for regional MP voters could choose a candidate from those nominated by party members in their region, or could simply vote for the regional slate as ranked by the party members’ nomination process. The Law Commission model was inspired by that used in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, the regions have a total of 16 MPs; in Wales, 12. For example, a region might have 14 MPs — nine local MPs, and five regional “top-up” MPs who campaigned in your region and will compete with your local MP to serve you. It maintains the link between citizens and their representatives. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which each have 14 MPs, and in the Atlantic provinces, the “region” would be the whole province. Like all proportional systems, it will let every vote count, and promote consensual, cooperative and cross-party law-making. Since each province would still have the same number of MPs, no constitutional amendment would be needed.
2003	2. Quebec’s Estates-General on the Reform of Democratic Institutions - 2003 While the Law Commission was working, the Quebec Government published a discussion paper in October 2002 on The Reform of the Voting System in Quebec. Even though the PQ government had been elected with fewer votes than the opposition Liberals, Premier Bernard Landry persuaded his party to finally take action on this last item of Lévesque’s unfulfilled democratic legacy. In 2002-3 Quebec’s Estates General on the Reform of Democratic Institutions (the Béland Commission) visited 20 towns in Quebec and held 27 public hearings, and in February 2003 brought 825 people together to deliberate on these issues. They voted, by a 90% vote of those 825 people, for proportional representation, while only 10% wanted to retain First Past The Post. Their preferred model was a mixed member proportional representation model, that would add regional “top-up” MNAs to correct for proportionality. In March 2003 they presented their Report.
2003	3. Prince Edward Island - 2003 In January 2003, the Government of Prince Edward Island appointed the Hon. Norman Carruthers, a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, to examine options for reform of the Island’s electoral system. In December 2003, Justice Carruthers presented his report recommending a Mixed Member Proportional System (MMPS) based on the system now in use in Germany, New Zealand, Scotland and Wales. In a plebiscite held in November 2005 with a very low turnout, voters opted to retain the province’s FPTP system.
2004	4. British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly - 2004 The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was an independent non-partisan assembly of citizens who met to examine the province’s electoral system.” The Assembly had 160 members: 80 women and 80 men. Two were Aboriginal people and the rest were chosen from each of British Columbia’s 79 electoral districts by draw. The Assembly spent nearly one year deliberating on whether British Columbia should change its electoral system. It recommended a proportional voting system. Its Report in December 2004 proposed the single transferable vote (STV) system, used in Ireland, for British Columbia. The STV proposal was put to the voters of British Columbia as a referendum question at the provincial election held in May 2005. It gained 57% support across British Columbia, and was approved in 77 out of 79 ridings. Because it did not have 60% support, the government did not proceed with it.
2003	5. Quebec government study - 2003 In July 2003 the new government of Jean Charest began work on a mixed member system, aided by the 140-page Report of Prof. Louis Massicotte. After 14 months work, in December 2004 the Quebec government presented a draft bill proposing a new mixed electoral system like the Law Commission recommendation but with very small regions. The 127 Members of the National Assembly (MNAs) would be 77 members elected locally, and 50 in “top-up” regions helping to ensure that the number of seats a party wins is proportional to the percentage of votes cast for it. The regions would mostly comprise only five MNAs each: three constituencies and two regional seats. Unlike the Law Commission model, voters would still cast only one vote. The candidate with the most votes in the local riding would be elected, as is currently the case. The remaining regional seats would be awarded to under-represented parties.
2005	6. New Brunswick’s Commission on Legislative Democracy - 2005 Bernard Lord, Premier of New Brunswick, established the Commission on Legislative Democracy in December 2003 to study democratic reform in New Brunswick. In its report in January 2005 the Commission recommended a regional MMP system that would combine 36 single-member riding seats with 20 regional “top-up” PR seats, elected within four approximately equal-sized, multi-member, regional districts. The Commission proposed that each of the four regions would elect five MLAs, and that parties must receive at least 5% of the list vote on a province-wide basis to be eligible to win any list seats. The government agreed to hold a referendum in May 2008 on changing the province’s electoral system to a form of MMP representation. Bernard Lord said it should be decided by a 50% majority, “the normal way decisions are made in a democracy.” However, in 2006 Bernard Lord’s government was defeated (ironically, in a “wrong-winner” election where his PCs got more votes than the Liberals but fewer seats), and the new government did not proceed.
2006	7. Quebec Citizens’ Committee Report - 2006 A parliamentary Select Committee of the National Assembly began proceedings in November 2005, and sat jointly with a randomly selected Citizens’ Committee. They were to study and make recommendations on the draft bill introduced in December 2004. They held public consultations in 16 cities across Quebec beginning in January 2006, when 379 groups and individuals made presentations. In April 2006 the Citizen’s Committee presented to the National Assembly a detailed report in which it rejected the government bill and proposed a MMP system similar to that used in Germany, with a two-vote system. Voters would, with their first ballot, elect 60% of the Assembly members. The other 40% of the members would be elected by the second ballot pertaining to the elector’s choice of party. The Citizens’ Committee faulted the bill particularly for proposing very small regions with high thresholds which would not accurately reflect the popular vote, and a single-vote system that would perpetuate the practice of strategic voting.
2006	8. Quebec Select Committee Report - 2006 The Select Committee recommended the mixed compensatory system proposed, but with changes to give greater consideration to the multiplicity of political expressions.
2007	9. Ontario Citizens’ Assembly - 2007 In November 2004, Premier McGuinty announced that a citizens’ assembly would be created to examine the FPTP electoral system and to recommend possible changes. A referendum would be held if an alternative electoral system was recommended by the citizens’ assembly. The selection process for the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, 103 randomly selected citizens, was not completed until June 2006. Members of the Assembly began meeting in September 2006 with a mandate to examine current and prospective electoral systems through public meetings and written submissions. In a report in May 2007, the Assembly recommended a MMP system combining members of provincial parliament elected in local districts and members elected for the whole province from closed province-wide party lists. The government held a referendum on this recommendation in conjunction with the general election in October 2007. The Citizens’ Assembly proposal garnered only 37% of the popular vote. This failure was no surprise to fans of the UK’s Jenkins Commission, which said top-up MPs locally anchored to small areas are “more easily assimilable into the political culture and indeed the Parliamentary system than would be a flock of unattached birds clouding the sky and wheeling under central party directions.”
2007	10. Quebec Chief Electoral Officer’s Report - 2007 In December 2007 the Report of Quebec’s Chief Electoral Officer on a compensatory mixed system was made public. It reviewed a number of options for the design of a mixed proportional model for Quebec, leaning towards a nine-region model with an open list system giving voters the choice of using their second ballot to vote for a party or one regional candidate.

With all this evidence, no wonder polls have shown for more than ten years that at least 70% of Canadians support moving towards a system of proportional representation in Canadian elections.

Welcome

Welcome to “False Majority False Democracy,” a non-partisan blog intended to help Fair Vote Canada’s objectives, and make it easier to find things on this topic than it is in the fast-moving conversations of Facebook, etc.

Because of the voting system in Canada, a party that gets only 40% of the people's vote can get 60% of the seats in our Parliament, and 100% of the power.

In Canada we call that a “majority government.”  Is that label genuine or false?


Some might say, “Okay so we get false majorities, but does that mean we have a false democracy? It’s not perfect, but it’s better than some countries where no one gets a vote.”

Here’s a response: Why call it a majority when it’s not a majority? Why have a voting system that treats the people’s vote count as less important than the winner-take-all design of our voting system.—a design that is subject to human fallibility? The word “demo-cracy” means “people rule,” not "voting systems rule." If we aim for the ideal of “people rule” we find a better voting system than the winner-take-all voting systems: Approximately 90 countries around the world already have voting systems which produce proportional representation in their houses of power.

Again, I wonder, “Why call it a majority when it’s not a majority?”

Is it because we want to pretend that we have a strong and stable government? If so, we are fooling ourselves: Is it “stable government” when the policies of one winner-take-all government are often undone by the next, and then back again, as the pendulum swings in a winner-take-all voting system? Stability is found in cooperative coalition governments that follow a steady trajectory instead of constant pendulum swings in policy. Stability is not found in a Parliament which is in a constant internal battle with itself for the “winner-take-all” prize of having 100% of the power for four years.

A democracy that is misleading in the way it describes “majority governments” is, in a sense, a false democracy.

Is it important to you to live in a genuinely democratic country?

If so, your help is needed. Welcome to this discussion.

This blog contains resources that you can use: It will contain a growing body of ....

--...perspectives that you can use as we convince others that this situation is intolerable.

--... perspectives that you can use as we mutually educate and inform each other, and as we discuss with others.