How would proportional representation work in Waterloo—Owen Sound?

A new poll shows 70% of Canadians support proportional representation for Canadian elections. Only 18% told Environics they were opposed.

So this is no longer an academic discussion. This is a practical discussion: if Canada gets PR, how would it work in the Central West Ontario area from Waterloo to Owen Sound?

Voters would elect more than one MP, so they would have competing representatives, likely including someone they helped elect. Every vote counts. Fair Vote Canada says rural and urban voters in every region should have fair representation in both government and opposition.

There would be no closed lists. Voters would elect all the MPs.

Mixed Member Proportional

With the Mixed Member Proportional system, you have two votes: you vote for your local MP, and you can also vote for the party you want to see in government and your favourite of your party’s regional candidates. You can vote for the candidate you like best for local MP without hurting your party, since the party make-up of parliament is set by the party votes. In New Zealand, 30% of voters split their votes that way.

The region running from Cambridge and Caledon to Owen Sound will have 11 MPs under the new boundaries. On the votes cast in 2011 across Central West Ontario, that would be 10 Conservatives and one Liberal. Yet those voters voted only 51% Conservative, 23% Liberal, 19% New Democrat, 6% Green, and 1% other. If every vote counted equally, Conservative voters would have elected six MPs, Liberal voters would have elected two MPs, New Democrat voters would have elected two MPs, and Green voters one.

If they elected seven local MPs and four regional MPs, the seven local MPs would have been a Liberal from Guelph and six Conservatives. The four regional MPs would have been two New Democrats, one Liberal, and one Green, topping up the results.

But this is on the votes cast in 2011. When every vote counts, turnout will be at least 6% higher, and no one will have to cast a “strategic vote.” So who can say what would be the result of real democratic elections?

How would party members from Cambridge to Owen Sound nominate and rank a group of regional candidates? It could be done on-line, and with a live convention site in Kitchener (or Guelph or Fergus). But voters would have the final say, since they can vote for their party’s regional candidate they prefer.

The result is this: on top of having local MPs, voters would also elect regional MPs. With one regional Liberal MP, it might be one of those who got the most votes in 2011, such as Andrew Telegdi or Karen Redman from Kitchener. The two regional NDP MPs might have been those who got the most votes in 2011, Cambridge’s Susan Galvao and Bruce County’s Grant Robertson. The regional Green MP might have been Caledon’s Ard Van Leeuwen, Finance critic in their Shadow Cabinet, their top regional vote-getter in 2011, or Cathy MacLellan, their Energy and Natural Resources critic.

How would regional MPs operate? Many regional MPs would need several offices, just as Michael Chong already has offices in Fergus and Georgetown, and Gary Schellenberger has offices in Stratford and Mount Forest.

No doubt Liberal voters in Dufferin, Caledon and Halton Hills would look to their nearby local Guelph MP. The regional Liberal MP would need offices in Kitchener, Stratford and Owen Sound, and would have five of the seven (larger) local ridings to cover. I imagine Susan Galvao as a regional NDP MP would need offices in Kitchener and Guelph, while Grant Robertson as a regional NDP MP might have offices in Owen Sound, Stratford and Orangeville. Just the way it’s done in Scotland.

Canada-wide consequences.

Of course, proportional representation would mean a lot for Canada. We would not likely have a one party government’s Prime Minister holding all the power. Parliament would reflect the diverse voters of every province.

With this kind of power-sharing, Canada would look quite different.  

If we had a Proportional Representation voting system this is what Canadians could have accomplished over the past twenty years:

Ø Engaged and motivated voters

Ø A reinvigorated democratic system

Ø More women MPs and a fair mix of party representation

Ø Lead the world in climate chaos mitigation and adaptation

Ø Affordable post-secondary education

Ø Financial regulations and fair trade deals that would have prevented the 2008 economic collapse and the austerity morass

Ø A national child care program

Ø Much healthier First Nations communities

 
If we had used province-wide totals with perfect proportionality the projected results on the 2011 votes with the extra 30 MPs would be: 140 Conservatives, 103 NDP, 64 Liberals, 18 Bloc, and 13 Green.

With this MMP model, with average region size of 12 MPs, the projected results are 143 Conservative, 108 NDP, 63 Liberals, 15 Bloc, and 9 Greens. Very close to perfect proportionality, while keeping all MPs accountable to real local and regional communities.

Unrepresented Conservative voters would elect eight more Quebec MPs, one more in Newfoundland, one more in PEI, and one more on Vancouver Island.

Our electoral system is broken and people know it:

Ø Disengaged citizens who are rejecting their right to vote

Ø Proroguing Parliament

Ø An unelected Senate that rewards loyal party members with expensive perks

Ø Majority governments with minority voting results

Ø A dysfunctional conflict-oriented political process

Ø Anti-democratic omnibus bills

Ø Robocalls and election manipulation

Ø Withholding budget implementation details from Parliament

Ø Broken election promises

Ø Elimination of evidence-based policy research (e.g. Stats Can)

Ø Increasing inequality of wealth and opportunity

 
Poll results on proportional representation
 
Environics asked “Some people favor bringing in a form of proportional representation. This means that the total number of seats held by each party in Parliament would be roughly equivalent to their percentage of the national popular vote. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose moving towards a system of proportional representation in Canadian elections?”

Interviewing for this Environics National Telephone Survey was conducted between March 18th – 24th, 2013, among a national random sample of 1,004 adults. The margin of error for a sample of this size is +/- 3.10%, 19 times out of 20.

Result: support 70%, oppose 18%, depends 6%, don’t know 6%.

The Environics poll showed 93% of Green voters support proportional representation while 4% oppose, 82% of NDP voters support it while 11% oppose, 77% of Liberal voters support it while 15% oppose, 62% of Conservative supporters support it while 28% oppose, and 55% of voters undecided as to party support PR while 19% oppose and 27% said “don’t know” or “depends.”

How do regional MPs manage to serve large regions?

The Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system lets you elect regional MPs competing with your local MP to represent you. One question often asked is “how do regional MPs manage to serve large regions?”

Let’s see how this works in Scotland. After the Scottish Parliament was re-established in 1999, their first government (elected by MMP) was a stable coalition of Labour and Liberal Democrats. It lasted two terms, with a Scottish National Party opposition. Today the Scottish National Party has a majority government. In Canada, this system as recommended by the Law Commission of Canada would give us a Parliament reflecting our political diversity in each province. For the reasons well explained by Stéphane Dion, this would let the whole spectrum of parties, from Greens to Conservatives, embrace all the regions of Canada.   

In Scotland’s semi-rural South Scotland region, Scottish National Party (SNP) voters elected a total of eight Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs). Labour voters elected four MSPs, Conservatives three, and Liberal Democrats one. When the nine local seats went four SNP, three Conservative, and two Labour, that left the seven top-up regional MSPs as four SNP, two Labour, and one Liberal Democrat. (Green voters elected a South Scotland MSP in 2003 but not since.)

The two regional Labour MSPs are Claudia Beamish and Graeme Pearson, both newly elected in 2011. For the seven local seats not won by Labour, Claudia Beamish covers the southeast portion where she lives and was a teacher in a rural school, while Graeme Pearson covers the northwest portion south of Glasgow where his roots are. Splitting the region this way is the usual practice.

Since the Scottish National Party won four local ridings in South Scotland, its four regional MSPs have only the other five local ridings to cover. Charles "Chic" Brodie was also the local SNP candidate in Ayr where he lives, and serves it as a “shadow” local MSP, just as all German list MPs do. Paul Wheelhouse was also the local SNP candidate in Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire where he lives, and serves it. Joan McAlpine and Aileen McLeod share constituency offices in Dumfries, where they can cover two ridings: Dumfriesshire, and Galloway and West Dumfries. That leaves the Edinburgh suburb of East Lothian, where the SNP lost one riding by only 151 votes and won the other one.

Jim Hume, Liberal Democrat MSP for South Scotland since 2007, used to be Chairman of Lothians and Borders National Farmers Union, and is used to covering the whole region.

At the other end of Scotland is its largest region, geographically: Highlands and Islands. It’s a stronghold of the Scottish National Party. Voters for Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives each elected only two MSPs out of the 15 in that region. Since Liberal Democrat voters elected two of the eight local MSPs, they were not entitled to elect any regional MSPs. So the regional MSPs include two Labour and two Conservatives. (Again the Greens elected an MSP in 2003 but not since.)

The eight-riding region ranges from Inverness in the centre to Moray in the east, Argyll and Bute in the south, the Western Isles to the west and the Shetland Isles to the north.

Mary Scanlon has been a Conservative member of the Scottish Parliament from 1999 to 2006 and since 2007. Her constituency office is in Inverness in the centre of the region, and she had run before in that area. She has local office hours on Fridays or Mondays, and during a week’s break, which rotate through 13 locations around the region serving five of the eight local ridings. Jamie McGrigor has been a Conservative member of the Scottish Parliament since 1999. He previously ran locally in Argyll and Bute, and has his constituency office there. He covers the southwest three ridings.

Rhoda Grant has been a Labour member of the Scottish Parliament from 1999 to 2003 and since 2007, re-elected in 2011. David Stewart has been a Labour member of the Scottish Parliament since 2007, re-elected in 2011.  They share a constituency office in Inverness, in the centre of the region. They both have their political base in Inverness, where each has run for a local seat. Unlike most regional MSPs, they do not divide the region between them for constituency service purposes. Instead, they specialize: Rhoda Grant in Energy, Enterprise &Tourism, Health, Finance and Infrastructure, David Stewart in Education, Justice and Transport. Like all regional MSPs they hold local office hours in each of the seven outlying ridings throughout the year.

 

Wales does the same, with five regions each electing eight local AMs and four regional AMs. Canada could do that too.

Every vote counts, moderately

My Letter to the Editor in The Hill Times, March 11, 2013:

"Justin Trudeau says every MP should represent actual Canadians and Canadian communities, not just political parties. (Let’s ignore for the moment that every MP was nominated by a political party).

In a discussion with Justin Trudeau on Feb. 14 about the mixed-member model recommended by the Law Commission of Canada, he quickly focused on the key question “how big are the regions?” The Law Commission recommended two-thirds of MPs be from local ridings as today, and one-third elected from regions so as to “top-up” disproportional local results. You vote for your local MP, and also for your party’s regional candidate you prefer.

Many Liberals, like Stéphane Dion, want a “moderate proportional representation, which corrects partisan and regional distortions, but moderate enough to avoid a proliferation of parties.” So the regions must not be too large. Just as well, or we’d have bed sheet ballots, and MPs wouldn’t be from actual communities as Mr. Trudeau and others want.

Take Ottawa, which will elect eight MPs at the next election. Assume it elects five local MPs: say three Conservatives, one Liberal and one NDP. On the votes cast in 2011, the three regional MPs who Ottawa voters elect would be two Liberals and one NDP, for a total of three, three and two, matching the total Ottawa vote shares. Isn’t Ottawa a real community? Can’t Ottawa Liberal Party members nominate accountable candidates?

But is this region too small for Green voters to have any hope of representation? Not on the votes cast in 2008, when Lori Gadzala was the strongest Green candidate in Ottawa. The result would have been three Conservatives, three Liberals, one NDP and one Green. Every vote counts, moderately."

How big are the regions?

For most purposes, regions of 14 of so MPs (nine local, five regional) would serve Canada well, as they do Scotland and Wales. They would result in Canadians having more choices, rather than trying to use a two-party voting system in a multi-party country. Requiring a threshold of 5% of the vote in the province for a party to win a "top-up" seat in that province would prevent micro-parties from proliferating as Israel's 2% threshold allows them to do.

Regions averaging only seven MPs would only be half as proportional, but could still be acceptably proportional, and MPs would be more locally accountable. These are plausible trade-offs in designing a democratic voting system. As the Jenkins Commission said in the UK, while proposing regions averaging eight MPs, 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.”

Suppose, instead of Ottawa's 8 MPs and Eastern Ontario's 8 MPs being two separate regions, they were a single region. Francophone voters in eastern Ontario might prefer this, being together in one region, and Green voters would certainly prefer it, being numerous enough to elect an MP.

If the ten local MPs were seven Conservatives, two Liberals and one NDP, the six regional MPs would (on the votes cast in 2011) include an extra Liberal, an extra NDP MP, and a Green MP, for a total of eight Conservatives, four Liberals, three NDP and a Green. Oddly, by splitting this region into two smaller regions, not only the Greens lose, but the Conservatives lose an MP due to rounding differences: each of the two smaller regions gets two NDP MPs, while the Liberals get three in Ottawa and two in the rest of Eastern Ontario. 

These rounding differences dwindle with larger regions, but they also cancel out. The full mid-size regional model gives a Canada-wide outcome of 144 Conservatives, 107 NDP, 63 Liberals, 15 BQ, and 9 Greens, while the smallish-region model gives 144 Conservatives, 115 New Democrats, 60 Liberals, 14 Bloc, and five Greens. One difference is in Ontario, where the smallish-region model gives the NDP three more MPs that the mid-size region model, at the cost of the Greens (three).

So the smaller regions help the two biggest parties, just as one would expect.

But only a little. Is it a good trade-off?

This is one of the issues to be determined after public consultation.

What would proportional representation in the House of Commons mean for Central East Ontario?

What would proportional representation in the House of Commons mean for Central East Ontario?

A prime example of the need is the belt of 11 federal ridings outside the GTA from Leeds—Grenville to Simcoe—Grey and Muskoka. In 2011 Conservative voters cast 53% of those votes and elected 91% of those 11 MPs. NDP voters cast 21% and elected no one. Liberal voters cast 19% of those votes but, being concentrated in Kingston, elected one MP. Green Party voters cast 5%. (This is just what I told the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission hearing in Cobourg Nov. 12, 2012.)

Under the model recommended by the Law Commission of Canada in 2004, every voter in the region would be served by competing MPs. You could choose to go to your local MP for service or representation, or you could go to one of your regional MPs.

With new boundaries from the 2011 census, this belt should elect 13 MPs. With eight local MPs and five regional MPs, if Liberal voters still elected one local MP in Kingston, the results on the votes cast in 2011 would have been seven local Conservative MPs, one local Liberal MP, three regional NDP MPs, one regional Liberal MP, and one regional Green MP (using the highest remainder calculation).  The regional MPs for each party would be the party’s regional candidates who got the most regional votes.

Of course it would also help our region by giving Canada a democratic government. Even with the new MPs for Alberta and elsewhere, on the votes cast in 2011 a proportional result would be 140 Conservatives, 103 NDP, 64 Liberals, 18 Bloc, and 13 Greens.

Our regional Liberal MP might have been Northumberland's Kim Rudd who got 12,822 votes in 2011 or Betsy McGregor from Peterborough (12,664 votes). Our regional NDP MPs might have been Peterborough’s Dave Nickle who got 14,723 votes, Kingston’s Daniel Beals (13,065), and Lindsay’s Lyn Edwards (12,934) or Barrie’s Myrna Clark (11,842). Our regional Green MP might have been Parry Sound’s Glen Hodgson who got 3,776 votes, or Simcoe County’s Valerie Powell (3,489).

 

This simulation is only if people voted as they did on May 2, 2011. In fact, if voters knew every vote would count, more would have voted -- often 6% or so more -- and some would have voted differently. We would have had different candidates - more women, and more diversity of all kinds. We could have different parties.

 

As Stéphane Dion says "I no longer want a voting system that gives the impression that certain parties have given up on Quebec, or on the West. On the contrary, the whole spectrum of parties, from Greens to Conservatives, must embrace all the regions of Canada. In each region, they must covet and be able to obtain seats proportionate to their actual support. This is the main reason why I recommend replacing our voting system."

 

On this simulation, even the Conservative caucus would be more representative, with nine more MPs from underrepresented areas. Instead of Conservative voters electing no one from the west two-thirds of Québec, they'd have three MPs from Montréal/Laval, one more from the South Shore (Montérégie), and one more from the North Shore and western Québec where Lawrence Cannon lost his seat. And they'd have two more from central and eastern Quebec, and second MPs from both Newfoundland and PEI.

 

A new politics

An exciting prospect: voters have new power to elect who they like. New voices from new forces in Parliament. No party rolls the dice and wins an artificial majority. Cooperation will have a higher value than vitriolic rhetoric. Instead of having only a local MP -- whom you quite likely didn’t vote for -- you can also go to one of your diverse regional MPs, all of whom had to face the voters. Governments will have to listen to MPs, and MPs will have to really listen to the people. MPs can begin to act as the public servants they are. And all party caucuses will be more diverse.

The models in Ontario and PEI which failed referendums had closed province-wide lists for the additional “top-up” MPPs. This failure was no surprise to those who wrote the Jenkins Commission report in the United Kingdom. Jenkins 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.”

Why change Fair Vote Canada's Statement of Purpose?

Fair Vote Canada members are about to vote on whether to change its Statement of Purpose. The proponents of the change, Dave Meslin’s RaBIT campaign in Toronto, have published a flyer which deserves a response.

Why a referendum?

Many of Fair Vote Canada’s strongest supporters are outraged by this referendum.

This should be a very exciting time. We know 70% of Canadians support proportional representation. We know several Liberal Party leadership candidates are looking seriously at it, and Stephane Dion is for it. Many thousands want to make 2015 the last unfair election. They want to be able to say: never again will a false majority government hold all the power with only 39.6% support. They're sick of hearing: “vote for the lesser of evils.”

So why on earth would Fair Vote Canada give advocates of a winner-take-all voting system a platform to promote their system, and a vote on whether to accept it?  Why this distraction about the Alternative Vote (“Instant Runoff Vote,” or “preferential ballot in single-member districts”)?

FVC’s strategic goal is to make the 2015 federal election about getting a mandate for electoral reform. But just at this critical moment, a handful of our members want to focus on municipal politics. They would water down and divert our campaign for proportional representation.

My own priority is not municipal elections. However, Dave Meslin’s RaBIT campaign in Toronto has been trying (and failing) to take over Fair Vote Canada’s Toronto Chapter and get it to support the Alternative Vote for Toronto city council elections, even though AV/IRV is just another winner-take-all voting system, not proportional at all.  They keep claiming their campaign is not contrary to Fair Vote Canada’s Statement of Purpose, and confusing our supporters.

This might not matter so much, but some members of the Liberal Party of Canada are promoting AV/IRV for federal elections, and the media are taking notice.

So this distraction has to be dealt with first. Then, FVC can get on with its national priority.

Contradictory goals

RaBIT (Ranked Ballot Initiative of Toronto) says we can advocate against AV for federal elections, while promoting it for Toronto city council. They say we can educate the public why AV is good for elections to a council governing a city larger than six Canadian provinces, but bad for elections in those six provinces or for federal elections.  

Yet they complain that PR is not yet a top-of-mind issue for a majority of Canadians. Obviously, promoting AV will not help this; it will hurt. It’s no surprise that some of RaBIT’s supporters also support AV federally.

Why is Fair Vote Canada against AV federally?

Here’s why AV is not the answer to Canada’s democratic deficit.

FVC says “It is important to understand that preferential balloting in single-member ridings does not yield results that accurately reflect voter intentions. This system, called the Alternative Vote (AV), still violates the democratic principle of equal representation for every voter, just like our current, first past the post system. Political parties are waking up to the potential benefits that may accrue to their party in switching to a system like AV, but we need a voting system that’s good for voters, not one that’s good for political parties.”

With just one winner in each riding, at least half of votersdon’t actually elect anyone, and our Parliaments, legislatures and councils don’t actually look anything like us.

AV will lead to proportional representation?

RaBIT says adopting AV in Toronto would put voting reform on the map, and help raise the profile of the need for electoral reform at all levels. Sure, if you think AV at the federal level is “electoral reform.” Fair Vote Canada says no. So does RaBIT, but they sound pretty confused. The fact is, AV has never led to proportional representation anywhere in the world.

Spreading anti-PR myths

RaBIT says municipal PR would require much larger wards in Toronto (where they have single-member wards) “creating a financial obstacle to running, thus reducing choice and diversity.” Of course, with nothing but single-member districts, we can’t have PR anywhere. The key to PR is letting voters have more than one representative. As long as there’s only one winner in a riding, many (even most) voters in that riding simply do not elect the candidate that best represents them, and results are not proportional.

Our opponents keep pointing to Israel’s national party lists, and complain that PR means no local MPs, and means party domination. In fact, PR for Canada means some multi-member districts or regions, giving voters more diverse representation and more choice of representatives. Yet RaBIT says PR means the opposite. With allies like this, who needs enemies?

Municipally, FVC says the diversity of views and opinions among voters must be fairly represented in councils in proportion to votes cast. We must change the voting systems to enable the election of candidates with a diversity of views and opinions reflecting the diversity of views and opinions among voters.

As Fair Vote Canada has said "Actually, experience in Australia shows that AV can be even less proportional than FPTP. Turns out vote splitting is how third parties win seats." Or minority groups in municipal elections. AV guarantees that no one can win without getting 50% of the vote. No help for minorities there.

"Vote with our hearts”

One of the main reasons many Canadians want proportional representation is so that they can elect a representative of their choice. Proportional representation ends the need for so-called “strategic voting.” You can vote with your heart, and your vote will count: you will elect a representative.

Yet RaBIT says “With a ranked ballot we can eliminate strategic voting and vote with our hearts” and “this allows people to vote for their true preferences rather than strategically.” Nonsense: the preferential ballot is simply institutionalized strategic voting. As Fair Vote Canada has said for seven years, being represented by your second choice is the problem, not the solution. With AV/IRV, candidates of currently underrepresented voters simply get eliminated in the second or third round of counting, in favour of the two top candidates. You might feel better about being cheated of representation, by being allowed to cast a token vote for a losing candidate, but that’s no real help.

Furthermore, if you want to prevent an enemy from being elected, you cast your first choice for the centrist candidate with the best chance of picking up enough votes to beat the enemy. Hold your nose, for fear she or he gets eliminated: so strategic voting is alive and well.

Single-minded support of AV

RaBIT’s flyer says “there is no One-Size-Fits-All solution.” Yet they insist AV is the only solution for Toronto. Fair Vote Toronto Chapter has advocated “a citizen-driven, expert-supported, review of all options for electing the Council and mayor.” That’s the process Fair Vote Canada always supports. But RaBIT doesn’t. Yet there are other options for Toronto.

Analogies with American elections

While the USA has a two-party system, Canada has not had two parties since 1921. Electoral reformers in the USA have to embrace AV because of the two-party context. In the USA, almost every major position is a single position, such as President or Senator. Since the USA has a two-party system with no real party cohesion, AV/IRV makes sense there. The fact that AV has led to bi-polar politics in Australia doesn’t bother American reformers. It bothers the hell out of me. But RaBIT’s leaflet says we should copy Fair Vote USA. Even though AV hurts thirdparties.

AV for Mayors

Many people like the idea of a preferential ballot for a single position like a party leader or a mayor. This referendum is explicitly about AV/IRV for municipal COUNCILS, not for mayors. Yet RaBIT tries to confuse FVC members by saying it’s about mayors. Fair Vote Canada already says “Where the objective is to choose the most popular candidate for a one-person job – for example a party leader, speaker of the legislature or president – then AV is better than first-past-the-post.”

Municipalities without parties?

RaBIT promotes the myth that Toronto City Council has non-partisan local elections. However, the majority of city councillors have known party affiliations and were elected with support from party machines. Very few true independents have ever been elected since the Megacity was imposed on Toronto in 1998. As John Sewell says, it’s time to rethink the Toronto Megacity.

FVC’s objectives for local government in communities without municipal parties

The following motion has been adopted by FVC Council: “Based on the FVC Statement of Purpose, FVC’s objectives for local government in communities without municipal parties are as follows:

1) To create an equal voice for every citizen, the diversity of views and opinions among voters must be fairly represented in our municipal councils in proportion to votes cast. We must change the voting systems to enable the election of candidates with a diversity of views and opinions reflecting the diversity of views and opinions among voters. Block voting (voters elect many councillors at-large by voting for all of them) often results in one group winning all the seats, leaving others voiceless.

2) Never should citizens be denied representation simply because their preferred candidate cannot win a single-member ward. A democratic voting system must encourage citizens to exercise positive choice by voting for the candidate they prefer. They should not find it necessary to embrace negative or strategic voting – to vote for a less-preferred candidate to block the election of one even less preferred.

3) To reflect in councils the diversity of society we must change the voting system to remove barriers to the election of candidates from groups now underrepresented including women, ethnic and cultural minorities and Aboriginals."

Conclusion

Asking all voters to be represented by only one person is wrong.

As my friend Aamir Hussain says “AV for a representative body strikes directly against the core principles of Fair Vote Canada and comprises a serious challenge to the cause of Proportional Representation in Canada as a whole. After all both FPTP and AV as systems are perfectly fine with some candidate getting elected to council or parliament with 50%+1 of the vote while the rest of the electorate is treated as completely irrelevant, unimportant, and not worthy of representation. It's those unrepresented voters that Fair Vote Canada was built to champion and advocate for, and supporting AV for election to any sort of legislative body would be our complete abdication of that responsibility and cause. After all, going by Rabit's own words why would we ever choose a PR system that creates electoral districts that are too large, reduces choice and diversity of candidates, and makes it impossible for a candidate to run an independent campaign? These are all incredibly damaging and baseless claims on Proportional Representation that are made on Rabit's own website and they can be applied for any level of government. How can Fair Vote advocate for PR if, let alone respond to such attacks, it explicitly or implicitly gives them its blessing?”

Stuart Parker

For a very clear response to RaBIT, read what Stuart Parker says and more from Stuart Parker here.

What would Parliament look like, with a “moderately proportional” voting system?

Stéphane Dion wants a “moderate proportional” voting system. But his first proposal had no local MPs. What would Parliament look like, with a “moderately proportional” mixed proportional voting system as explained in my previous post?

Every MP would be locally anchored, in regions of averaging seven MPs, such as eight MPs (five local, three regional) or six (four local, two regional).

Silenced voters would have elected MPs

Liberal voters silenced in 2011 would likely have elected MPs like David Bertschi in Ottawa, Martha Hall Findlay in Toronto, Martin Cauchon in Montreal, Marie Bountrogianni in Hamilton, Mary MacDonald in Edmonton, and other MPs in Alberta, Mississauga, Brampton, York Region, Simcoe County, Waterloo Region, Niagara, London, Southwestern, Central East, Eastern, Northeastern and Northwestern Ontario, Longueuil and Montérégie, and Eastern and Central Quebec, 26 more than in 2011. 

NDP voters silenced in 2011 would have elected MPs in Calgary and every region of Alberta, in Saskatchewan, in seven regions of Ontario where they are unrepresented, in both halves of New Brunswick, and in northern Nova Scotia, about 30 in all. However, they would have elected 18 fewer in Quebec. 

And the Conservative caucus, whether still in government or in opposition, would have had MPs like Lawrence Cannon from Gatineau, Josée Verner in Quebec City, and MPs from Montreal and its suburbs and Central Quebec, as well as from downtown Toronto. While Conservative voters in strongholds would no longer see sweeps, silenced Conservative voters would have elected 11 more MPs. 

This model sounds like it could exclude the Greens. It would have excluded most Green voters on the votes cast in 2011, when they got less than 4% everywhere east of Alberta. But most proportional systems exclude a party that gets less than 5% of the vote. When every vote counts, Green voters would have cast at least as many votes as they did in 2008, when this model would have let them elect 15 MPs, assuming the “highest remainder” calculation. Even on the votes cast in 2011, silenced Green voters would have elected Deputy Leader Adriane Carr and three more MPs as well as Elizabeth May. The preferential ballot proposed by Stéphane Dion would let Green votes count for their second choice, but this complexity would not be necessary. 

Moderate proportionality

By proposing "moderate proportionality" Stéphane Dion has put on the table the first, since the 2004 Law Commission Report, new idea worth exploring.

In the new 338-MP House, my simulation of this model from the votes cast in 2011 projects 145 Conservatives, 114 New Democrats, 60 Liberals, 14 Bloc, and 5 Greens. This is not quite the same as the results with perfect province-wide proportionality: 140 Conservative, 103 New Democrats, 64 Liberals, 18 Bloc, 13 Greens. But it is a vast improvement on the projected results with Canada’s skewed winner-take-all system: 189 Conservative MPs, 108 NDP, 36 Liberals, 4 Bloc, and 1 Green. With 170 MPs needed for a majority government, an NDP-Liberal coalition would have 174 MPs, or a Conservative-Liberal coalition would have 209 MPs.

As Stéphane Dion argues, this would be a degree of proportionality “moderate enough to avoid a proliferation of parties and retain the possibility of a majority government formed by a single party.”

 

A moderate MMP model following the recommendations of Professors John Carey and Simon Hix (2009) might have regions for the new 338-MP House ranging from six MPs (four local, two regional top-up) to eight MPs (five local, three regional top-up), with a couple of exceptional three-seaters in northern BC, northwestern Ontario and Saguenay, a four-seater for northern Nova Scotia, and five-seaters in New Brunswick and rural Alberta. It could have an average District Magnitude of about 7.56 in Ontario, 7.1 in Quebec, 6.8 in Alberta, 7 in BC, and 7 Canada-wide.

With such small regions, we could have an open-list model (you vote for the regional candidate you prefer) with no "bedsheet ballots."

Here are the MPs who might have been elected, but note that this calculation is for the new 338-MP House.

Ontario MPs

In the region from Willowdale to Etobicoke, Liberal voters would have elected an extra MP such as Martha Hall Findlay. NDP voters would have elected two extra MPs such as Giulio Manfrini and Diana Andrews. 

 

In Toronto Centre (Beaches and Don Valley East to High Park), Conservative voters would have elected an extra MP. That would be the regional candidate who got the most votes across the downtown, perhaps lawyer Maureen Harquail or pastor Kevin Moore, Executive Director of City of Hope. Liberal voters would have elected a couple more MPs like Yasmin Ratansi and Rob Oliphant.

In Scarborough, Conservative voters would have elected an extra MP such as Chuck Konkel or Marlene Gallyot

 

In Brampton-Mississauga, rather than all MPs being Conservatives, Liberal voters would have elected two MPs such as Peter Fonseca and Ruby Dhalla, and NDP voters two such as Jagmeet Singh and Waseem Ahmed. 

 

In Halton-Mississauga Southwest, rather than all MPs being Conservatives, Liberal voters would have re-elected Paul Szabo or Bonnie Crombie, while NDP voters would have elected an MP such as Michelle Bilek. 

 

In Durham—Peterborough, Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as Dan Holland or Kim Rudd, and NDP voters would have elected two MPs such as Oshawa autoworkers president Chris Buckley and Peterborough teacher Dave Nickle or Lyn Edwards.

 

In York Region, Liberal voters would have elected two more MPs such as incumbent Bryon Wilfert and anti-racist educator Karen Mock or long-time Vaughan councillor Mario Ferri. NDP voters would have elected two, such as Markham auditor Nadine Hawkins (sister of MPP Peter Kormos) and Keswick youth counsellor Sylvia Gerl. 

 

In Hamilton-Niagara, Liberal voters would have elected two MPs such as Niagara Falls lawyer Bev Hodgson and former Ontario minister Marie Bountrogianni. 

 

In Waterloo-Wellington-Brant-Haldimand, NDP voters would have elected two MPs such as Cambridge community volunteer Susan Galvao and Brantford social worker Marc Laferriere. Liberal voters would have elected a second MP such as incumbents Andrew Telegdi or Karen Redman. 

In Barrie-Muskoka-Dufferin-Bruce, Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as Steve Clarke or Grey County communications consultant Kimberley Love. NDP voters would have elected an MP such as Parry Sound doctor Wendy Wilson or Bruce County farm leader Grant Robertson. Green Party voters would have elected an MP such as Shadow Cabinet Finance Critic Ard Van Leeuwen. 

 

In London—Oxford-Perth, Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as incumbent Glen Pearson or London lawyer Doug Ferguson. NDP voters would have elected a second MP such as London biochemist Peter Ferguson or North Wellington computer consultant Ellen Papenburg. 

 

In Windsor—Sarnia, Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as Chatham teacher Matt Daudlin, Wallaceburg retired educator Gayle Stucke, or Kingsville Mayor Nelson Santos. 

 

In Ottawa, Liberal voters would have elected a third MP such as lawyer David Bertschi or women’s rights advocate Anita Vandenbeld. NDP voters would have elected a second MP such as ecology policy coordinator Trevor Haché or hospital psychologist Marlene Rivier.

 

In Eastern Ontario outside Ottawa, NDP voters would have elected two MPs such as Prince Edward County retired teacher Michael McMahon and Kingston community volunteer Daniel Beals. Liberal voters would have elected a second MP, such as Prescott and Russell lawyer Julie Bourgeois or Belleville lawyer Peter Tinsley. 

 

In Northeastern Ontario, Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as North Bay incumbent Anthony Rota or Sudbury lawyer Carol Hartman. 

 

In Northwestern Ontario, Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as former MPs Ken Boshcoff or Roger Valley. 

 

British Columbia MPs

 

In Vancouver—-Richmond-Delta, Green voters would have elected an MP, no doubt Deputy Leader Adriane Carr. NDP voters would have elected another MP such as Karen Shillington.

 

In Burnaby-Maple Ridge-North Shore, Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as Taleeb Noormohamed or retired engineer and Kung Fu Master Ken Low.

In Surrey--Fraser Valley, Liberal voters would have elected an MP, such as incumbent Sukh Dhaliwal or Chilliwack City Councillor Diane Janzen. NDP voters would have elected another MP, such as Nao Fernando or disability advocate Gwen O’Mahony.

 

In the BC Interior, NDP voters would have elected a second MP such as Kamloops social work professor Michael Crawford or Kelowna’s Tisha Kalmanovitch. Green voters would have elected an MP such as retired North Okanagan lawyer Greig Crockett or Kelowna real estate agent Alice Hooper. 

 

On Vancouver Island, Conservative voters would have elected a third MP such as incumbent Gary Lunn or Victoria lawyer Troy DeSouza. 

 

Alberta MPs

 

In Calgary, Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as retired police officer Cam Stewart or lawyer and former school board chair Jennifer Pollock. NDP voters would have elected an MP such as Calgary Labour Council V-P Collin Anderson, nurses leader Holly Heffernan or CUPE activist Paul Vargis. Green voters would have elected an MP such as human rights expert Heather MacIntosh.

 

In Southern Alberta, NDP voters would have elected an MP such as Lethbridge retired professor Mark Sandilands.
 

In Central Alberta NDP voters would have elected an MP such as Starland County teacher Stuart Somerville, or Camrose teacher Ellen Parker.
 

In Edmonton, Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as lawyer and university professor Mary MacDonald. NDP voters would have elected two more MPs such as past NDP leader Ray Martin and Lewis Cardinal (Co-chair of the NDP’s Aboriginal Commission) or actress/entrepreneur Nadine Bailey.

 

In northern Alberta, NDP voters would have elected an MP like Grande Prairie Metis lawyer Jennifer Villebrun.

 

Saskatchewan

 

In South Saskatchewan, NDP voters would have elected two MPs like Regina lawyer Noah Evanchuk and Regina city councillor Fred Clipsham.

 

In North Saskatchewan, NDP voters would have elected three MPs like Saskatoon professor and farm leader Nettie Wiebe, past Chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations Lawrence Joseph, and Saskatoon lawyer Darien Moore or health expert Denise Kouri.

 

Manitoba

 

In Winnipeg, NDP voters would have elected a second MP such as incumbent Jim Maloway or federal party Treasurer Rebecca Blaikie. Liberal voters would have elected a second MP such as incumbent Anita Neville or former MP Raymond Simard or former city councillor Terry Duguid.

 

In Manitoba outside Winnipeg, NDP voters would have elected a second MP, such as former Roblin town councillor and public health coordinator Cheryl Osborne.

 

Quebec

 

In West Montreal, Conservative voters would have elected an MP, such as former Senator Larry Smith or former Montreal City executive committee member Saulie Zajdel.

 

In Montreal East, Conservative voters would have elected an MP such as Jimmy Yu or Audrey Castonguay. Bloc voters would have elected two MPs such as leader Gilles Duceppe and incumbent Daniel Paillé or women’s centre coordinator Ginette Beaudry.

 

In Montreal North—Laval, Conservative voters would have elected an MP such as past-President of the Order of Quebec Engineers Zaki Ghavitian. Bloc voters would have elected a second MP such as staffer Marie-France Charbonneau or incumbent Robert Carrier.

 

In Longueuil—Roussillon--Lajemmerais, Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as incumbent Alexandra Mendès or lawyer Roxane Stanners. Bloc voters would have elected an MP such as incumbent Luc Malo or Carole Lavallée.

In Monteregie-sud-est, Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as former cabinet minister Denis Paradis or Lyne Pelchat. Conservative voters would have elected an MP such as past-president of the Quebec Provincial Police Association Jean-Guy Dagenais (subsequently appointed to the Senate) or PMO Deputy Director of Communications and Granby native Mélisa Leclerc. Bloc voters would have elected an MP such as incumbent Claude DeBellefeuille or Meili Faille.

In Laurentides—Lanaudière, Conservative voters would have elected an MP such as former MNA Lucie Leblanc. Bloc voters would have elected two MPs, such as incumbents Pierre Paquette and Johanne Deschamps.

 

In Outaouais—Abitibi—Nord, Conservative voters would have elected an MP such as cabinet minister Lawrence Cannon, and Bloc voters would have elected an MP such as incumbents Marc Lemay or Richard Nadeau.

 

In Estrie—Centre-du-Québec—Mauricie, Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as former MNA Francine Gaudet or the former CEO of the City of La Tuque Yves Tousignant. Conservative voters would have elected an MP, such as former mayor of Asbestos Jean-Philippe Bachand or Maskinongé businesswoman Marie-Claude Godue.

 

In the Quebec City--Côte-Nord region, Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as lawyer Jean Beaupré or public relations specialist Martine Gaudreault. Conservative voters would have elected an MP such as incumbent minister Josée Verner (who was made a Senator.) Bloc voters would have elected an MP such as incumbents Michel Guimond or Christiane Gagnon.

 

In Saguenay, Bloc voters would have elected an MP such as incumbents Robert Bouchard or Gérard Asselin.

 

In Chaudière-Appalaches—Gaspésie, Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as lawyer and former MNA Nancy Charest or former MNA Claude Morin.

 

New Brunswick

 

In Southwest New Brunswick, NDP voters would have elected an MP such as Saint John economics professor Rob Muir. Liberal voters would have elected an MP such as Fredericton journalist Randy McKeen or Charlotte County John Howard Society Executive Director Kelly Wilson.

 

In Northeast New Brunswick, NDP voters would have elected a second MP such as Moncton art gallery owner Shawna Gagné or past Chief of Elsipogtog First Nation Susan Levi-Peters.

 

Nova Scotia

 

In Nova Scotia North, NDP voters would have elected an MP such as Pictou County councillor and teacher David K. Parker or Cape Breton health care worker and CUPE rep Kathy MacLeod.

 

Prince Edward Island

 

Conservative voters would have elected a second MP, such as former MLA and cabinet minister Mike Currie or Charlottetown teacher-librarian Donna Profit.

 

Newfoundland and Labrador

 

Conservative voters would have elected a second MP, such as former MP Fabian Manning or lawyer and former provincial cabinet minister John Ottenheimer.