How would proportional representation work for Quebec's National Assembly?

More Choice

The main improvement proportional representation would make in Quebec politics is to give voters more choice.

No longer would the winner-take-all system tend to force voters into a bi-polar choice between one federalist party and one sovereignist party. Almost every vote would count equally to elect someone.

How it would work on the votes cast in 2014.

How would it work on the votes cast in 2012?

But most people ask “how would it work?” Here’s an easy way to see that. Let’s see how the votes cast in the 2012 election would have a different result, even though the real change would be to let voters vote differently.

With proportional representation, the number of Members of the National Assembly (MNAs) elected matches the share of the votes cast by supporters of each party.

Accountable MNAs

But can we still keep MNAs accountable to our community or region? Yes. With the mixed compensatory system described by Quebec’s Director-General of Elections (DGE), we still elect local MNAs. Voters unrepresented by the local results top them up by electing regional MNAs. The total MNAs match the vote share.

Local MNAs and Regional MNAs

On Montreal Island, instead of 28 local MNAs, voters would elect 17 local MNAs (from larger ridings) and eleven regional MNAs.

On the votes cast in 2012, they would have been 13 Liberals, seven Parti Quebecois (PQ), five Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ), and three Quebec Solidaire (QS). Let’s compare that with the actual results under the winner-take-all system: 20 Liberals, six PQ, and two QS.

In Laval, voters would have elected two Liberals, two PQ, and two CAQ, rather than four Liberals, two PQ and no CAQ.

The 189,354 CAQ voters in Montreal Island and Laval, silenced by winner-take-all, would be fairly represented. Also, PQ and QS voters were slightly cheated, while the Liberals got a bonus of nine MNAs.

But outside Montreal Island and Laval, it was the PQ that got the winner-take-all bonus. Across Quebec, the total results under proportional representation would have been 41 PQ MNAs rather than 54, 40 Liberal MNAs rather than 50, 36 CAQ rather than 19, and eight QS rather than only two.

How would Montreal voters be represented? The 17 larger local ridings would be about the same size as the federal ridings. Similarly, across Quebec you would see 75 local ridings and 50 regional MNAs.

In Montreal Island, assume 12 ridings elected Liberals, the PQ got four, and QS one. Then the eleven regional MNAs are five CAQ, three PQ, two QS, and one Liberal. These compensate for the disproportional local results. They top up the number of MNAs from Montreal Island to make 13 Liberals, seven PQ, five CAQ, and three QS, so every vote counts equally. In Laval, you would have two local Liberal MNAs, two local PQ MNAs, and two regional CAQ MNAs.

Who would those eleven regional MNAs from Montreal Island be?

Open lists, closed lists, flexible lists

The DGE discussed the options in a report in December 2007:

1. closed lists: the top candidates as ranked in the party’s regional nominations;
2. open lists: you vote for your party’s regional candidate you prefer; 
3. flexible lists: you can vote for the regional slate or one name on it.

Closed lists let parties nominate a slate with whatever gender balance and minority representation their members choose. Open lists give voters maximum choice.

The DGE concluded that the objective of flexible lists is “to reach a balance between voter choice and better representation of women and minorities.” That’s also why the Law Commission of Canada recommended it.

So the five CAQ MNAs, for example, would be the top five as ranked by the regional nominations and re-ranked by the voters. Every MNA has faced the voters.

Regional results

In the other seven regions described by the DGE, the results under proportional representation would be:

Montérégie: eight PQ, seven CAQ, six Liberals, and one QS, rather than 12 PQ, seven Liberals and three CAQ. (That’s seven local PQ MNAs and one regional, two local CAQ and five regional, four local Liberals and two regional, and one regional QS.)

Laurentides—Lanaudière: six PQ, six CAQ, two Liberals, and one QS, rather than the actual result which shut out 94,003 Liberal voters, electing 11 PQ MNAs and four CAQ. (That’s six local PQ, three local CAQ and three regional, two regional Liberals and one regional QS.)

The west and north (Outaouais, Abitibi and North): three Liberals, three PQ, two CAQ and one QS, rather than five Liberals and four PQ. (That’s three local Liberal MNAs, two local PQ and one regional PQ, two regional CAQ, and one regional QS.)

Estrie—Centre-du-Québec: remarkably, this region would see no change, thee MNAs from each major party.

Capitale-Nationale—Mauricie: six CAQ, five Liberals, four PQ, and one QS, close to the six CAQ, six Liberals and four PQ elected in 2012.

Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean—Côte-Nord: rather than the PQ sweeping all seven seats, silencing 47,567 Liberal voters, they would have elected two MNAs, the CAQ one, and the PQ only four. (That’s four local PQ MNAs, two regional Liberals and one regional CAQ.)

Eastern Quebec (Chaudière-Appalaches, Bas-Saint-Laurent, Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): four Liberals, four CAQ, four PQ, one QS, rather than five Liberals, five PQ, and three CAQ.

So across Quebec, the PQ caucus would include 32 local MNAs and nine regional MNAs. The Liberal caucus would include 30 local MNAs and ten regional MNAs. The CAQ caucus would include 12 local MNAs and 24 regional MNAs. The Quebec Solidaire caucus would include a local MNA and seven regional MNAs.

And these totals match province-wide proportionality almost exactly. (Due to rounding differences using nine regions, the province-wide calculation would give the Liberals one more MNA and the CAQ one fewer.)

More political diversity

Instead of the CAQ caucus holding the balance of power but having no representative from Montreal Island and Laval, it would have had seven MNAs there: maybe Dominique Anglade (CAQ Party President), Guy Boutin, Maud Cohen, Mario Bentrovato, Richard Campeau, Paola Hawa and George Manolikakis?

Instead of the 263,111 Quebec Solidaire voters electing only two MNAs, and none from outside the island of Montreal, they would have elected six more. Maybe Andrés Fontecilla or Manon Massé in Montreal, Manon Blanchard in Montérégie, Flavie Trudel in Laurentides—Lanaudière, Benoit Renaud in the west and north (Outaouais, Abitibi and North), Serge Roy in Capitale-Nationale—Mauricie, and Patricia Chartier in the East of Quebec (Chaudière-Appalaches, Bas-Saint-Laurent, Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine).

Instead of the 94,003 Liberal voters in Laurentides—Lanaudière being shut out, they would have elected two MNAs: maybe Lise Proulx and Linda Lapointe. Instead of the 47,567 Liberal voters in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean—Côte-Nord being silenced, they would have elected two MNAs: maybe Serge Simard and Lise Pelletier.

I have shown no one elected from Option Nationale or any other party, because they did not get enough votes to win even one regional seat. Furthermore, many people would prefer a threshold of 4% or 5% before a party can win a regional seat.

This projection assumes voters voted as they did in 2012. In fact, more would have voted. And some would have voted differently -- no more strategic voting. We would likely have seen different candidates -- more women, and more diversity of all kinds. We could have seen different parties. Who knows who might have won real democratic elections?

The Mixed Compensatory system in a nutshell

Each voter has two votes.

The local vote is used to elect an MNA to represent your riding, as today.

The regional vote or party vote is used to elect several regional MNAs from your region.

The local vote can be cast by marking your ballot with an X for any candidate standing in your riding, as we do today. The candidate chosen by the largest number of voters in a riding wins the seat on a winner-take-all basis.

The regional vote can be cast by marking your ballot with an X for any regional candidate standing on the regional ballot.

If that candidate is a party candidate, this vote counts as a vote for your party. The parties' regional votes are then counted to give the level of support for each party in the region.

If a party’s voters have managed to elect only a few local MNAs in that region, or none at all, that party gets additional “top-up” seats to make their final total more in line with their vote share in the region. You can vote for the regional candidate you prefer: it’s personal and proportional. The party’s regional candidates with the most votes win those seats.

Personalized proportional representation

Every voter has competing MNAs: you can go to your local MNA or one of your diverse regional MNAs. Germans call this "personalized proportional representation."

Once every vote counts, voters will be free to vote for their real first choice, and more voters will find it worthwhile to vote. Turnout is 5 to 6 points higher in countries where the electoral system is proportional, says research published by Elections Canada.

With two votes, you can vote for the party you want in government. And you can also vote for the local candidate you like best regardless of party, without hurting your party, since it's the second ballot that determines the party make-up of the legislature. About 35% of voters split their ballots this way in New Zealand with a similar system.

Locally anchored MNAs

The models rejected in Ontario and PEI had closed province-wide lists for the additional “top-up” MPPs.

This failure was no surprise to the UK’s Jenkins Commission, which recommended the same system described above. 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.” See how this works in Scotland.

PQ Bonus

One of the weirdest things about winner-take-all voting is the bonus it gives the PQ in Quebec elections.

The PQ has traditionally enjoyed a much higher vote efficiency than the Liberals, due to their lead among francophone voters. The classic example is the 1998 election, where the Liberals actually won more votes while the PQ formed a majority government.

In 1998 the PQ won 61% of the seats on 42.9% of the vote, while the Liberals won 38% of the seats on 43.6% of the vote. That’s not because the ridings the PQ won had smaller populations. It’s because the PQ had the majority of francophone votes across the majority of ridings, while the Liberals piled up wasted big majorities in federalist ridings. Result: it took 36,914 votes to elect a Liberal MNA, while it took only 22,951 votes to elect a PQ MNA, 38% fewer. That’s the PQ’s 38% bonus.

But not just in 1998.

In the 1995 referendum, sovereignists lost when they won only 49.4% of the vote. Yet, if the referendum has been on a riding-by-riding winner-take-all basis, the Yes would have won when it carried the day in 65% of the ridings.

In 1994 it took 36,972 votes to elect a Liberal MNA, while it took 22,746 votes to elect a PQ MNA: 38% fewer. Again, the PQ had a 38% bonus.

In 2003 and 2008, when the Liberals won, their false-majority bonus exceeded the underlying built-in PQ bonus. But the basic issue continued. That’s why Jean Charest tried to introduce proportional representation in 2004-5. (Sadly, his caucus diluted the model until it was no longer acceptable to the public.)

In Quebec in 2012 it took 27,219 votes to elect a Liberal MNA, while it took only 25,809 votes to elect a PQ MNA, 5.2% fewer. That’s the PQ’s 5.2% bonus.

In 1970, René Lévesque was cheated by winner-take-all, when the PQ came second with 23% of the vote, but stood fourth in the assembly with only seven seats. In 1973, again Lévesque was cheated when the PQ vote rose to 30% but it won only six seats. So when he finally won, after losing the 1980 referendum he turned his mind to proportional representation.

But his caucus balked in 1981-4, just as Charest's caucus did later. And just as Pierre Trudeau's caucus would not even let him implement his 1980 Throne Speech commitment. In 1980 Pierre Trudeau's problem with western under-representation in his government was extreme: he had only two MPs from the four western provinces, both from Manitoba. Trudeau would have had sixteen more western MPs with proportional representation. In its 1980 Speech from the Throne, Trudeau’s newly reelected Liberal government promised to appoint a committee to study the electoral system. One of the very few promises he could not keep. (Although 70% of Canadians support PR, this seldom includes government backbenchers.)

Even today, when the Liberals, the CAQ and Quebec Solidaire need proportional representation, the PQ still respects Lévesque’s legacy – but just not this year.

Technical note

The rounding method used in this calculation is “highest remainder,” because it's the simplest. Germany used to use this too, on the premise that it offset the risk to proportionality of the 5% threshold. 

How would proportional representation work in Eastern Ontario?

NOTE: This post was completely rewritten on Oct. 5, 2014.

For an alternative configuration, see How would proportional representation work in Central East Ontario? 

How would proportional representation work in Eastern Ontario, the Ottawa —Kingston region?

I’m not talking about classic “list-PR” with candidates appointed by central parties. Every Member of Parliament represents actual voters and real communities.
 

Polls show more than 70% of Canadians support proportional representation for Canadian elections, and the Liberal Party of Canada has opened the door to start implementing it within one year of the 2015 election.
 

So this is no longer an academic discussion. This is a practical discussion: if Canada gets PR, how would it work in Eastern Ontario?

Mixed Proportional

With the Mixed Proportional system, you have two votes. With one, you help elect a local MP as we do today.

With the other, you can vote for the party you want to see in government, and for your favourite of your party’s regional candidates. With this vote, you help elect a few regional MPs to top-up the local results so that every vote counts: it’s proportional. You can vote for the regional candidate you prefer: it’s personal. There are no closed lists. Voters elect all the MPs.

Each province still has the same number of MPs it has today. No constitutional amendment is needed.
 

Competing MPs
 

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 from a “top-up region” based in your area, likely including someone you helped elect. Fair Vote Canada says “We must give rural and urban voters in every province, territory and regional community effective votes and fair representation in both government and opposition.”
 

Accountable MPs

This open list method was recommended both by our Law Commission and by the Jenkins Commission in the UK. Jenkins’ colourful explanation accurately predicted why closed lists would be rejected in Canada: additional members locally anchored 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.”

What would regional MPs do?

How would regional MPs operate? The regional MPs would cover several ridings each. Just the way it’s done in Scotland. Many regional MPs would need several offices, just as Pierre Lemieux already has offices in Hawkesbury, Rockland, Embrun and Alexandria.

Two models

In 2015 Eastern Ontario voters will elect 16 MPs, including two new ridings (Carleton, and Hastings—Lennox & Addington).

They could be in two eight-MP regions, in the model discussed here, inspired by the UK’s Jenkins Commission report. Ottawa will have eight MPs, including the new Carleton. The eight ridings from Belleville to Cornwall and Pembroke, including the new Hastings—Lennox & Addington, could be another eight-MP region centred on Kingston.

Or they could be one single “top-up” region, in the Law Commission of Canada`s model.

The majority of these MPs would still be local MPs. The others would be regional MPs, topping up the results to make them match the vote shares.

How would it work out?

So what would that look like? I’ve done simulations based on the votes cast in 2011.
 

This simulation is only if people voted as they did on May 2, 2011. When every vote counts, turnout will likely be at least 6% higher, and no one will have to cast a “strategic vote.” We would have had different candidates - more women, and more diversity of all kinds. We could even have different parties. Who can say what would be the result of real democratic elections?

Ottawa

In 2011 those voters elected four Conservative MPs, and only three others. Yet those voters voted only 41% Conservative, 31% Liberal, 23% New Democrat, and 4% Green. If every vote counted equally, on those votes on the 2015 boundaries Conservative voters would elect three MPs, Liberal voters three MPs, and New Democrat voters two MPs.

Mid-East Ontario (Kingston—Belleville—Cornwall)

In 2011 those voters elected six Conservative MPs, and only one Liberal. Yet those voters voted only 53% Conservative, 22% Liberal, 19% New Democrat, and 4% Green. If every vote counted equally, on those votes on the 2015 boundaries Conservative voters would elect four MPs, Liberal voters two MPs, and New Democrat voters two MPs.

Eastern Ontario (Ottawa—Kingston)

In the entire region, in 2011 those voters elected ten Conservative MPs, and only four others. Yet those voters voted only 47% Conservative, 27% Liberal, 21% New Democrat, and 4% Green. If every vote counted equally, on those votes on the 2015 boundaries Conservative voters would elect eight MPs, Liberal voters four MPs, New Democrat voters three MPs, and Green voters one.

Regional candidates

How would party members in these regions nominate and rank a group of regional candidates?

It could be done on-line, and with a live convention site in Ottawa or Kingston. Likely party members would nominate the same candidates nominated in the local ridings, and some additional regional candidates. (In Nova Scotia in 2011, in all 11 ridings the Liberals nominated only men. Additional regional candidates would surely have included some women, and since polls show 90% of Canadians want to see more women elected, we’ll elect women when given the chance.)

But voters would have the final say, since they can vote for their party’s regional candidate they prefer. This open list method was recommended both by our Law Commission and by the Jenkins Commission in the UK. Their colourful explanation accurately predicted why closed lists would be rejected in Canada: additional members locally anchored 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.”

More choice

With two votes, you can vote for the party you want in government. And you can also vote for the local candidate you like best regardless of party, without hurting your party, since it's the second (regional) ballot that determines the party make-up of the legislature. About 32% of voters split their ballots this way in New Zealand with a similar system.

This makes it easier for local MPs to get the support of people of all political stripes. They can earn support for their constituency-representation credentials, not just for their party. This boosts the kind of support MPs bring with them into the House of Commons, thus strengthening their independence.

Ottawa’s MPs

In the first model, based on the UK’s Jenkins Commission Report, Ottawa has five local MPs and three regional MPs. Since I’m projecting from the 2011 votes, I’ll start with the 2011 candidates. Let’s suppose the five local MPs are Conservatives John Baird and Pierre Poilievre, Liberals David McGuinty and Mauril Bélanger, and New Democrat Paul Dewar. (Whether this would really happen would depend on the borders of the five new larger ridings.) In that case, voters for each party would also elect one regional MP.

The regional MPs for each party would be the party’s regional candidates who ended up with the most support.

Conservative voters can vote for the regional Conservative candidate they prefer. Many would prefer Baird or Poilievre, but on election day, since they already won a local seat, the regional seat would go to the next most popular. In other words, Conservative voters whose preference was not Baird or Poilievre could help elect the third Conservative MP. Maybe francophones would prefer Royal Galipeau, who got 28,584 votes in 2011. Ethnic voters might prefer Elie Salibi (19,634) or Damian Konstantinakos (14,063). Woman Conservative voters might have preferred a new regional female candidate. Oddly, in 2011 all seven Conservative candidates in Ottawa were men. (That great Ottawa Conservative Charlotte Whitton would have been astonished.) But when Ottawa Conservatives met to elect their regional candidates, after they had confirmed five men who had already won local nominations, can you imagine them failing to nominate a woman?

Liberal voters would elect a regional MP such as Anita Vandenbeld (who got 17,790 votes in 2011), or Karen McCrimmon (18,393).

NDP voters’ regional MP might have been Trevor Haché who got 15,391 votes or Marlene Rivier (11,128), Ric Dagenais (12,962), or James McLaren (10,712).

Mid-Eastern Ontario’s MPs

In the first model, based on the UK’s Jenkins Commission Report, this region has five local MPs and three regional MPs. Let’s suppose the five local MPs are Conservatives Gord Brown in Leeds, Daryl Kramp in Hastings, Pierre Lemieux in Prescott-Russell, and Scott Reid or Cheryl Gallant in Renfrew—Lanark, and Liberal Ted Hsu in Kingston. (This would depend on local nominations and the borders of the five new larger ridings.)

In that case, Liberal voters would also elect one regional MP.  Maybe Casselman’s Julie Bourgeois who got 17,705 votes in 2011, Belleville’s Peter Tinsley (10,230), or Brockville’s Marjory Loveys (7,839).

New Democrat voters would elect two regional MPs. Maybe Kingston’s Daniel Beals who got 13,065 votes in 2011 and Belleville’s Michael McMahon (12,940), or Doug Smyth from Carleton Place (12,174), or Denis Séguin from Prescott-Russell (9,608).

Eastern Ontario’s MPs (Ottawa—Kingston)

In the second model, based on the Law Commission of Canada Report, this region with sixteen MPs would again have ten local MPs and six regional MPs. Conservative voters would elect eight MPs, Liberal voters four MPs, New Democrat voters three MPs, and Green voters one.

Let’s again suppose the ten local MPs are Conservatives John Baird and Pierre Poilievre in Ottawa, Gord Brown in Leeds, Daryl Kramp in Hastings, Pierre Lemieux in Prescott-Russell, and Scott Reid or Cheryl Gallant in Renfrew—Lanark; Liberals Mauril Bélanger and David McGuinty in Ottawa and Ted Hsu in Kingston; and New Democrat Paul Dewar in Ottawa.

In that case, Conservative voters elect two regional Conservative MPs, and can vote for the candidate they prefer. Maybe Ottawa’s Royal Galipeau, who got 28,584 votes in 2011, and whoever isn’t the local MP from Renfrew—Lanark - - Scott Reid (33,754) or Cheryl Gallant  (27,462) - - or maybe Kingston’s Alicia Gordon (21,189), or Ottawa’s Elie Salibi (19,634).
 

Liberal voters would also elect a regional MP. Maybe Ottawa’s Anita Vandenbeld (who got 17,790 votes in 2011) or Karen McCrimmon (18,393), or Casselman’s Julie Bourgeois (17,705), or Belleville’s Peter Tinsley (10,230).

New Democrat voters would elect two regional MPs. Maybe Ottawa’s Trevor Haché who got 15,391 votes in 2011 and Kingston’s Daniel Beals (13,065), or Ottawa’s Marlene Rivier (11,128), or Ottawa’s Ric Dagenais (12,962), or Belleville’s Michael McMahon (12,940), or Doug Smyth from Carleton Place (12,174).

Green voters would elect one regional MP, such as Ottawa’s Jen Hunter who got 3,262 votes in 2011, or John Hogg (3,434), Jean-Luc Cooke (3,260), Caroline Rioux (2,716), or Lanark’s John Baranyi (2,702) or Kingston’s Eric Walton (2,561).

Two models: summary

By using two regions, both regions are sure of keeping eight MPs. On the one-region model, in theory all six regional MPs might have been from one half of the region. And with only eight MPs per region, the proportionality is more moderate. No Green Party MP. (See Technical note below as to how close they came.)

Also, by a fluke of rounding differences, the two-region model costs Conservative voters an MP, while the Liberals and NDP each gain one. One nice feature of a system with 27 regions is that these rounding differences even themselves out across Canada.

Canada-wide consequences

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, 104 NDP, 64 Liberals, 19 Bloc, and 11 Green.

With these mixed models, the projected results for 338 MPs are 142 or 143 Conservatives, 106 or 107 NDP, 66 or 62 Liberals, 15 or 18 Bloc, and 10 or 7 Greens. Close to perfect proportionality, while keeping all MPs accountable to real local and regional communities.

Canadian diversity

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."

This is not a partisan scheme. Unrepresented Conservative voters would elect eight more Quebec MPs than in 2011, one more in Newfoundland, one more in PEI, one more in Northern Ontario, and one more on Vancouver Island.

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. (The last Prime Minister who got more than 50% of the votes was Brian Mulroney in 1988.) 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, here are only a few of the things 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

Our electoral system is broken and people know it:

Ø Disengaged citizens are ignoring their right to vote
Ø A dysfunctional conflict-oriented political process
Ø Majority governments with minority voting results

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.”

This is not new. Poll results have shown this for 13 years.

Technical notes

The rounding method used in the simulation is highest remainder, for the same reason the Ontario Citizens Assembly chose it: it's the simplest. Germany used to use this too, on the premise that it offset the risk to proportionality of the 5% threshold. Similarly it offsets the eight-MP region sizes.

Why did those Green voters elect no one in the two-region model? Here’s how the numbers of MPs turn out in Ottawa: Conservatives 3.32, Liberals 2.50, NDP 1.86, Greens 0.33. After the first six seats are calculated, the seventh goes to the “highest remainder,” the NDP, and the eighth then follows the “highest remainder” principle and goes to the Liberals. If discouraged Green Party voters had cast 7,600 more votes across Ottawa, they would have elected an MP such as Jen Hunter.
 

Similarly, Green voters outside Ottawa elected no one. But if discouraged Greens had cast 11,600 more votes in those eight ridings, they would have elected a regional MP such as Kingston’s Eric Walton.

Similarly, in 2008 the Green Party got a lot more votes than in 2011. At the 2008 vote levels, Ottawa’s eight MPs would be 3 Conservatives, 3 Liberals, 1 NDP and 1 Green.

In the first model, the local MP is elected by a preferential ballot, but that would have made no difference in Eastern Ontario on the 2011 votes. I’ve used the EKOS poll taken April 28-30, 2011.

How would proportional representation work in Peel and Halton?

How would proportional representation work in Peel and Halton?

Polls show more than 70% of Canadians support proportional representation for Canadian elections, and the Liberal Party of Canada has opened the door to start implementing it within one year of the 2015 election.

So this is no longer an academic discussion. This is a practical discussion: if Canada gets PR, how would it work in Peel Region and Halton Region?

Mixed Proportional

With the Mixed Proportional system, you have two votes. With one, you help elect a local MP as we do today. With the other, you vote for the party you want to see in government, and for your favourite of your party’s regional candidates. In this way, you also help elect a few regional MPs to top-up the local results so that every vote counts: it’s proportional. You can vote for the regional candidate you prefer: it’s personal. There would be no closed lists. Voters would elect all the MPs.

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.

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.

Two models

In 2015 Peel and Halton will have 14 MPs (16 if you include Burlington and Dufferin—Caledon), including four new ridings: Brampton Centre and South, Mississauga Centre, and Milton.

It could be two regions, in the model discussed here: Brampton—Mississauga East will have seven MPs, including new Brampton Centre and South. Mississauga Southwest—Halton will have seven, including new Mississauga Centre and Milton.

Or it could be a single region, in the model discussed here.
 

Brampton—Mississauga East

In 2011 those voters elected five Conservative MPs, no one else. Yet those voters voted only 42% Conservative, 33% Liberal, 22% New Democrat, and 3% Green. If every vote counted equally, in 2015 Conservative voters would elect three MPs, Liberal voters two MPs, and New Democrat voters two MPs.

Mississauga Southwest—Halton

In 2011 those voters elected five Conservative MPs, no one else. Yet those voters voted only 49% Conservative, 32% Liberal, 15% New Democrat, and 3% Green. If every vote counted equally, in 2015 Conservative voters would elect four MPs, Liberal voters two MPs, and New Democrat voters one MP.

Peel—Halton

Across the whole region, in 2011 these voters elected 12 Conservative MPs, no one else. Yet those voters voted only 48% Conservative, 30% Liberal, 18% NDP, and 4% Green.  If every vote counted equally, in 2015 Conservative voters would elect eight MPs, Liberal voters five MPs, and New Democrat voters three MPs.

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.” Another 3,000 Green voters would have been enough to elect a Green MP. Who can say what would be the result of real democratic elections?

The majority of these MPs would still be local MPs. The other would be regional MPs, topping up the results to make them match the vote shares.

In the first model, based on the UK’s Jenkins Commission Report, the local MP is elected by a preferential ballot. In Brampton (Bramalea-Gore-Malton) that would have meant an NDP MP, Jagmeet Singh. So, in the region of Brampton—Mississauga East, maybe there would be three local Conservative MPs, and one NDP.  In that case, you would also see two regional Liberal MPs and one regional NDP MP. In the region of Mississauga Southwest—Halton, likely there would have been four local MPs, all Conservative, and three regional MPs: two Liberal, and one New Democrat.

In the second model, adding Burlington and Dufferin—Caledon, we would see eight local Conservatuve MPs and one NDP, plus five regional Liberal MPs and two NDP.   

How would party members from these regions nominate and rank a group of regional candidates? It could be done on-line, and with live convention sites in Brampton and in Oakville, or in Mississauga. Likely party members would nominate the same candidates nominated in the local ridings, and some additional regional candidates. 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 two regional Liberal MPs in Brampton—Mississauga East, it might be two of those who got the most votes in 2011: Peter Fonseca, Navdeep Bains and Andrew Kania. The regional NDP MP might have been Manjit Grewal or Waseem Ahmed. With two local Conservative MPs from the present huge ridings of Brampton Springdale and Brampton West, both slated to be split in 2015, Kyle Seeback and Parm Gill would still expect to be local MPs, along with Eve Adams.

In Mississauga Southwest—Halton, the two regional Liberal MPs might have been Bonnie Crombie and Paul Szabo. The regional NDP MP might have been Michelle Bilek, or Pat Heroux or Aijaz Naqvi. Stella Ambler, Lisa Raitt, Terence Young, and Robert Dechert or Brad Butt would still be local MPs.

In the second model, the same Peter Fonseca, Navdeep Bains, Andrew Kania, Bonnie Crombie and Paul Szabo would likely be regional Liberal MPs, along with two NDP regonal MPs. The local Conservative MPs would, again, likely be Stella Ambler, Lisa Raitt, Terence Young, Kyle Seeback and Eve Adams, along with Mike Wallace, David Tilson or Parm Gill, and Robert Dechert or Brad Butt. 
 

How would regional MPs operate? The regional MPs would cover several ridings each. Just the way it’s done in Scotland. Many regional MPs would need several offices, just as David Tilson already has offices in Bolton and Orangeville.

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, here are only a few of the things 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

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 these mixed models, the projected results are 141 Conservatives, 107 or 108 NDP, 65 or 67 Liberals, 15 or 17 Bloc, and 8 or 9 Greens. Close to perfect proportionality, while keeping all MPs accountable to real local and regional communities.

This is not a partisan scheme. Unrepresented Conservative voters would elect eight or nine 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 are rejecting their right to vote

Ø A dysfunctional conflict-oriented political process

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

Ø Majority governments with minority voting results

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.”

This is not new. Poll results have shown this for 13 years.