How would the results of the 2011 election play out, by province and nationally, if a model of proportional representation were in place?
For a start, let’s use the 2008 votes.
This simulation is only if people voted as they did on October 14, 2008. 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.
To prevent any concern that we voters might have no voice in choosing the individual that will represent us, let’s use the open-regional-list mixed member proportional (MMP) model recommended by the Law Commission of Canada in 2004. (More details below.)
You have two votes. The first is for your local MP, as today. The second is for your party’s regional candidate you like best. This model still leaves almost two-thirds of MPs elected from local ridings. The other one-third are elected from regions averaging 14 MPs (nine local, five regional). If a party’s voters have managed to elect only a few local MPs in that region or none at all, that party gets additional “top-up” seats. The regional candidate with the most votes gets any regional seat needed to top-up the local results to make every vote count equally.
Winner-take-all gave Canada a House of Commons in 2008 of 143 Conservatives, 77 Liberals, 49 Bloc Quebecois, 37 New Democrats, no Greens and two independents.
Instead, the proportional results would have been 116 Conservatives, 86 Liberals, 55 New Democrats, 31 Bloc, 18 Greens, and two Independents. The majority of Canadians voted Liberal, NDP or Green. A Liberal-NDP-Green coalition government would have a clear majority. Or a Liberal-NDP government could rely on either the Greens or the Bloc for a majority. Either way, that's a strong, stable majority in Parliament elected by a majority of voters.
The provincial results are even more telling. They would be the end of the “regional silos” that Canada’s politics have fallen into. Our political diversity in each province is fully represented.
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.
Instead of Alberta Liberal voters electing no MPs, they would elect four Liberal MPs – two from Calgary, southern and central Alberta, two from Edmonton and northern Alberta. Alberta NDP voters would elect three NDP MPs (two north, one south), Greens two (one south, one north), and Conservatives 19.
Instead of Quebec having 49 Bloc MPs from only 38 percent of Quebec voters, it would have only 31. It would have 18 Liberal MPs, 15 Conservatives, nine New Democrats, a Green, and an independent.
In Ontario, instead of no Conservative MPs from the City of Toronto and 51 from outside Toronto, Toronto Conservative voters would have elected five MPs; outside Toronto, 35. Liberal voters, instead of electing 32 MPs from the Greater Toronto Area and only six from outside the GTA, would have elected 17 from outside the GTA and 22 from the GTA. NDP voters would have elected three more for a total of 20. Green voters would have elected seven MPs, one from each of six regions in southern Ontario and a second from their strongest region.
In BC, in the Lower Mainland Liberal voters would have elected five MPs rather than four, Green voters would have elected two MPs, and Conservative voters would have elected nine rather than 12. Similarly, in the rest of BC Liberal voters would have elected two MPs rather than only one, Green voters would have elected two MPs, while Conservative voters would have elected seven rather than ten.
In Saskatchewan, NDP voters would have elected three MPs rather than none, Liberal voters would have elected a second MP, and Green voters would have elected one, while Conservative voters would have elected eight MPs not 13.
In Manitoba, Liberal voters would have elected three MPs, not just one. Green voters would have elected an MP, while Conservative voters would have elected two fewer and over-represented NDP voters would have elected one fewer.
In summary, across the West that would mean 16 Liberal MPs, not just seven. For another example, the 28% of the voters in South Central Ontario (Hamilton-Waterloo-Niagara) who voted Liberal but elected no one would have elected four regional MPs.
In Nova Scotia, NDP voters would have elected a third MP, and Greens one, while over-represented Liberal voters would have elected three not five.
In New Brunswick, NDP voters would have elected a second MP and Greens one, while Conservative voters would have elected four not six.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, Conservative voters would have elected an MP, and NDP voters a second, while Liberal voters would have elected four not six.
In P.E.I. Conservative voters would have elected a second MP, while Liberals would have two MPs not three.
The models which failed referendums in Ontario and PEI had closed province-wide lists. This failure was no surprise to those who wrote the Jenkins Commission report in the United Kingdom. Jenkins said 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.”
MMP is used in Scotland, Wales, New Zealand and Germany. This model was described in more detail by Prof. Henry Milner at an electoral reform conference Feb. 21, 2009. A similar model is used in the German province of Bavaria and was proposed by Scotland's Arbuthnott Commission in 2006.
In this model, all MPs are locally accountable. Generally each group of three local ridings becomes two larger ones. Voters can go to their local MP or one of their competing regional MPs (about five regional MPs). Voters for all parties have representation in their region. A more detailed breakdown is available.
Note on Quebec Greens. In 2008 the Greens got only 3.5% of the votes in Quebec. Many MMP models would prevent them winning seats in a province where they got less than 5%, but the Law Commission did not say that. However, the region size in this model gives them no seats except one in the 21-MP region of Montreal/Laval where they got 4.3%.
Note: By having only 35% of MPs elected regionally, the results are not perfectly proportional, but very close. If we had used province-wide totals with perfect proportionality the results would have been: 118 Con (119 without the Quebec Greens), 81 Lib, 58 NDP, 28 BQ (30 without the Quebec Greens), 21 Green (18 without the Quebec Greens), and 2 Ind. If we had used regional totals with perfect proportionality the results would have been 117 Con, 82 Lib, 58 NDP, 28 BQ, 21 Green, and 2 Ind. In this simulation, after adjustments due to having 65% local seats, the results are: 116 Con, 86 Lib, 55 NDP, 31 BQ, 18 Green, and 2 Ind. The effect on balance in the House is the same. In return for slight deviations from perfect proportionality, all MPs are “locally anchored” and accountable. A very good trade-off.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
"The Twelve Percent Solution"
Liberal MP Mauril Belanger likes the “12-per-cent solution,” an additional 42 MPs on a proportional basis. He spoke favourably of it in a House of Commons debate March 3, 2011.
Great timing, when Canada is about to add seats to the House after the 2011 census.
Belanger was Paul Martin’s Minister responsible for Democratic Reform after the 2004 election. This March 3 he said in the House “I remember the discussions I had with Ed Broadbent, who was the member for Ottawa Centre at the time. I said that I personally agreed that there may be a use in our system for an element of proportionality.”
Referring to a 2004 Globe and Mail article by John Bossons proposing 42 proportional seats, Belanger said “The reasoning then was that if we had greater regional representation within caucuses, for instance if the Liberals had more voices from Alberta and the Conservatives more voices from Quebec and the NDP more voices from other provinces, in other words, if we had more provincial voices speaking in the respective parties' national caucuses, the national perspective might win the day more often. I think that would be healthy for our country. Therefore, I do support, notionally, an element of proportional representation.”
Belanger went on “despite all of the concerns with the concept of proportional representation, an element of that, . . . perhaps not even as high as 50% or even 25%, but an element of that, might help our democracy. . . perhaps the way to go would be to create a committee of the House of Commons and to give it a mandate . . . to go out and sound this out in a rational, responsible, realistic manner and come back to Parliament with its conclusions. Then Parliament should take them up in debate and see where they would lead us. If we were to do that . . . I would certainly be willing to support it and would encourage my colleagues to support it and to see where it takes us.”
Adding 42 more MPs
The last House also debated the government’s Bill C-12, which would have added 33 more MPs to the House of Commons (18 for Ontario, eight for Alberta, seven for BC). The majority of MPs seemed to also support giving Quebec a few more MPs to maintain its weight or at least ensure that it had as many MPs per person as the Canadian average. That number might be five or eleven, but let’s take nine, so as to use the total 42 of John Bosson’s proposal.
What would this “12 percent solution” do for Canada?
It wouldn’t give us full proportional representation as recommended by the Law Commission of Canada, where every vote would count equally.
Limited MMP
It would give us a taste of proportionality, limited proportionality, with only 42 proportional MPs to "top-up" the disproportional results from the local ridings.
But at least there would have been a couple of Liberal MPs from Alberta. And we would have three Conservative MPs from metropolitan Montreal, a couple more Liberals from BC, a couple of Conservatives from Toronto, a couple more NDP MPs from the West and four more from Quebec, maybe 13 Greens here and there, and so on.
However, how would these MPs be elected?
Locally anchored proportional MPs, elected not appointed
As Lord Jenkins’ Commission in the United Kingdom wrote, additional 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.”
So let’s assume medium-sized regions, each electing one, two or three “top-up” MPs to give representation to voters now unrepresented or under-represented.
Using the Law Commission’s method, the party’s regional candidates with the most votes win those seats. That’s why it’s called “open list.”
Or using the “best runners-up” method, they would be the party’s local candidates in the region who got the highest percent of the votes.
Either way, they would be personally elected, not appointed.
What would the House of Commons look like?
Based on the votes cast in 2008, let’s see what the House of Commons would look like.
Note: this is only if people voted as they did on October 14, 2008. In fact, if voters knew every vote would count, more would have voted -- typically 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.
Overall, a simulation of the 350 MPs shows 153 Conservatives, 87 Liberals, 48 Bloc, 47 NDP, 13 Greens, and 2 independents. (Note that, unlike full proportional representation where the majority of voters -- who voted Liberal, NDP or Green – would elect a majority of MPs, this would still leave the Bloc holding the balance of power on the 2008 votes.)
The “top-up” regions would average 16 or 17 MPs each (14 or 15 local, 2 regional). With larger provinces getting more MPs, most local ridings would be no larger. Elsewhere, every group of seven or eight ridings becomes six or seven larger ridings, but a candidate can also run for one of the regional MP positions, with two regional MPs in each 15-riding region.
Ontario could have 15 regional MPs: two Conservatives and a Green from Toronto, a Liberal and a Green from Hamilton-Niagara-Waterloo, a Liberal and a Green from Southwest (London - Windsor), a Liberal from Northern Ontario, an NDP and a Green from Eastern Ontario, an NDP and a Green from Peel-Halton, and two NDP and a Green from York-Durham-Barrie-Peterborough. (Note that Ontario would also have 109 local MPs, up from the present 106.)
BC could have five regional MPs: a Liberal and two Greens from the Lower Mainland, and a Liberal and a Green from the rest of BC.
Alberta could have four regional MPs: a Liberal and a Green from Edmonton and northern Alberta, and another Liberal and Green from Calgary, south and central Alberta.
Quebec could have 10 regional MPs: two Conservatives and an NDP from Montreal/Laval, a Conservative and an NDP from Montérégie, a Liberal and an NDP from Laurentides—Lanaudière -Western Quebec, a Liberal from Estrie-Centre-du-Québec-Mauricie, and a Liberal and an NDP from Quebec City and Eastern Quebec. (Note: this assumes a party has to reach a 5% threshold in a province to qualify for a regional MP, but the Greens were below that level in Quebec.)
Saskatchewan could have two provincial NDP MPs. Manitoba could have a Liberal and a Green provincial MP. Nova Scotia could have a provincial Green MP. New Brunswick could have a provincial NDP MP. Newfoundland and Labrador could have a provincial Conservative MP. P.E.I. could have a provincial Conservative MP.
Regions and sizes
The 42 regional MPs would include some in each province, so the six smaller provinces would lose some local MPs. Manitoba and Saskatchewan would have 12 local MPs not 14, and in return would have two provincial MPs. Each Atlantic province would have one less local MP, and one provincial MP. BC would have 38 local MPs and five regional MPs. Alberta would have 32 local MPs and four regional MPs. Ontario would have 109 local MPs and 15 regional MPs. Quebec would have 74 local MPs and 10 regional MPs.
With six small regions having only one regional MP (four Atlantic provinces, northern Ontario, and Estrie-Centre-du-Québec-Mauricie), four regions could have three regional MPs each: the BC Lower Mainland with 25 MPs, the City of Toronto’s 25, Montreal/Laval’s 25, and Central East Ontario (York-Durham-Barrie-Peterborough) with 24. The other 12 regions would have two regional MPs each.
Great timing, when Canada is about to add seats to the House after the 2011 census.
Belanger was Paul Martin’s Minister responsible for Democratic Reform after the 2004 election. This March 3 he said in the House “I remember the discussions I had with Ed Broadbent, who was the member for Ottawa Centre at the time. I said that I personally agreed that there may be a use in our system for an element of proportionality.”
Referring to a 2004 Globe and Mail article by John Bossons proposing 42 proportional seats, Belanger said “The reasoning then was that if we had greater regional representation within caucuses, for instance if the Liberals had more voices from Alberta and the Conservatives more voices from Quebec and the NDP more voices from other provinces, in other words, if we had more provincial voices speaking in the respective parties' national caucuses, the national perspective might win the day more often. I think that would be healthy for our country. Therefore, I do support, notionally, an element of proportional representation.”
Belanger went on “despite all of the concerns with the concept of proportional representation, an element of that, . . . perhaps not even as high as 50% or even 25%, but an element of that, might help our democracy. . . perhaps the way to go would be to create a committee of the House of Commons and to give it a mandate . . . to go out and sound this out in a rational, responsible, realistic manner and come back to Parliament with its conclusions. Then Parliament should take them up in debate and see where they would lead us. If we were to do that . . . I would certainly be willing to support it and would encourage my colleagues to support it and to see where it takes us.”
Adding 42 more MPs
The last House also debated the government’s Bill C-12, which would have added 33 more MPs to the House of Commons (18 for Ontario, eight for Alberta, seven for BC). The majority of MPs seemed to also support giving Quebec a few more MPs to maintain its weight or at least ensure that it had as many MPs per person as the Canadian average. That number might be five or eleven, but let’s take nine, so as to use the total 42 of John Bosson’s proposal.
What would this “12 percent solution” do for Canada?
It wouldn’t give us full proportional representation as recommended by the Law Commission of Canada, where every vote would count equally.
Limited MMP
It would give us a taste of proportionality, limited proportionality, with only 42 proportional MPs to "top-up" the disproportional results from the local ridings.
But at least there would have been a couple of Liberal MPs from Alberta. And we would have three Conservative MPs from metropolitan Montreal, a couple more Liberals from BC, a couple of Conservatives from Toronto, a couple more NDP MPs from the West and four more from Quebec, maybe 13 Greens here and there, and so on.
However, how would these MPs be elected?
Locally anchored proportional MPs, elected not appointed
As Lord Jenkins’ Commission in the United Kingdom wrote, additional 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.”
So let’s assume medium-sized regions, each electing one, two or three “top-up” MPs to give representation to voters now unrepresented or under-represented.
Using the Law Commission’s method, the party’s regional candidates with the most votes win those seats. That’s why it’s called “open list.”
Or using the “best runners-up” method, they would be the party’s local candidates in the region who got the highest percent of the votes.
Either way, they would be personally elected, not appointed.
What would the House of Commons look like?
Based on the votes cast in 2008, let’s see what the House of Commons would look like.
Note: this is only if people voted as they did on October 14, 2008. In fact, if voters knew every vote would count, more would have voted -- typically 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.
Overall, a simulation of the 350 MPs shows 153 Conservatives, 87 Liberals, 48 Bloc, 47 NDP, 13 Greens, and 2 independents. (Note that, unlike full proportional representation where the majority of voters -- who voted Liberal, NDP or Green – would elect a majority of MPs, this would still leave the Bloc holding the balance of power on the 2008 votes.)
The “top-up” regions would average 16 or 17 MPs each (14 or 15 local, 2 regional). With larger provinces getting more MPs, most local ridings would be no larger. Elsewhere, every group of seven or eight ridings becomes six or seven larger ridings, but a candidate can also run for one of the regional MP positions, with two regional MPs in each 15-riding region.
Ontario could have 15 regional MPs: two Conservatives and a Green from Toronto, a Liberal and a Green from Hamilton-Niagara-Waterloo, a Liberal and a Green from Southwest (London - Windsor), a Liberal from Northern Ontario, an NDP and a Green from Eastern Ontario, an NDP and a Green from Peel-Halton, and two NDP and a Green from York-Durham-Barrie-Peterborough. (Note that Ontario would also have 109 local MPs, up from the present 106.)
BC could have five regional MPs: a Liberal and two Greens from the Lower Mainland, and a Liberal and a Green from the rest of BC.
Alberta could have four regional MPs: a Liberal and a Green from Edmonton and northern Alberta, and another Liberal and Green from Calgary, south and central Alberta.
Quebec could have 10 regional MPs: two Conservatives and an NDP from Montreal/Laval, a Conservative and an NDP from Montérégie, a Liberal and an NDP from Laurentides—Lanaudière -Western Quebec, a Liberal from Estrie-Centre-du-Québec-Mauricie, and a Liberal and an NDP from Quebec City and Eastern Quebec. (Note: this assumes a party has to reach a 5% threshold in a province to qualify for a regional MP, but the Greens were below that level in Quebec.)
Saskatchewan could have two provincial NDP MPs. Manitoba could have a Liberal and a Green provincial MP. Nova Scotia could have a provincial Green MP. New Brunswick could have a provincial NDP MP. Newfoundland and Labrador could have a provincial Conservative MP. P.E.I. could have a provincial Conservative MP.
Regions and sizes
The 42 regional MPs would include some in each province, so the six smaller provinces would lose some local MPs. Manitoba and Saskatchewan would have 12 local MPs not 14, and in return would have two provincial MPs. Each Atlantic province would have one less local MP, and one provincial MP. BC would have 38 local MPs and five regional MPs. Alberta would have 32 local MPs and four regional MPs. Ontario would have 109 local MPs and 15 regional MPs. Quebec would have 74 local MPs and 10 regional MPs.
With six small regions having only one regional MP (four Atlantic provinces, northern Ontario, and Estrie-Centre-du-Québec-Mauricie), four regions could have three regional MPs each: the BC Lower Mainland with 25 MPs, the City of Toronto’s 25, Montreal/Laval’s 25, and Central East Ontario (York-Durham-Barrie-Peterborough) with 24. The other 12 regions would have two regional MPs each.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
