How would proportional representation work in Toronto?

How would proportional representation work in Toronto, for federal elections?

Polls show more than 70% of Canadians support proportional representation for Canadian elections. Canada’s Liberal Party has opened the door to start implementing PR within one year of the 2015 election. The NDP and Greens fully support PR.

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

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 vote, you can vote for the party you want to see in government, and for your favourite of your party’s regional candidates. So 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.

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.”
 

These two models both let citizens of regions across Canada elect competing MPs: a local MP, and a few regional MPs from a “top-up region” based in your area, likely including someone you helped elect.

 

Every vote counts. 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.”

 

Canada-wide consequences.

With the new 30 MPs, on the 2011 votes transposed by Elections Canada onto the new boundaries, the winner-take-all results for the 338 MPs would be 188 Conservative, 109 NDP, 36 Liberal, 4 Bloc, and 1 Green.

When every vote counts, the result is: 140 Conservatives, 104 NDP, 64 Liberals, 19 Bloc, and 11 Green, using full proportionality on province-wide totals.

 

With these two mixed models, the projected results are 140 or 141 Conservatives, 106 or 107 NDP, 63 or 67 Liberals, 15 or 17 Bloc, and 8 or 10 Greens. Close to perfect proportionality, while keeping all MPs accountable to real local and regional communities.

 

Across Ontario, NDP voters would elect 32 MPs rather than 24, Liberals would elect 31 or 33 rather than 14, and Greens would elect 3 or 5, while Conservatives would elect 53 MPs rather than 83.  

 

Toronto’s 25 MPs

Toronto elects 25 MPs in 2015. With the mixed proportional system, 15 of the 25 would still be local MPs, from larger ridings. The other ten would be regional MPs, topping up the total results to make them match the vote shares.

 

So what would that look like?

When every vote counts, turnout will be at least 6% higher, and no one will have to cast a “strategic vote.” Who can say what would be the result of real democratic elections?

Meanwhile, I’ve done projections on the votes cast in 2011.

 

Two models

Toronto’s MPs might be in two “top-up regions” under the Law Commission of Canada`s model, or in three regions under the “moderate” model based on the UK`s Jenkins Commission.

Regional candidates

 

How would party members nominate and rank a group of regional candidates? It could be done on-line, and with live conventions in each part of Toronto. Likely party members in each region would decide to 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.

 

For local MP, you can vote for the candidate you like best without hurting your party, since the party make-up of parliament is set by the party votes. In New Zealand, 35% of voters split their votes that way.

 

Two-region model

 

On the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results in the 12 ridings of North and West Toronto and Etobicoke would be seven Conservative MPs, three Liberals and only two New Democrats. Yet those voters cast 38% of their ballots for Liberals, only 36.5% for Conservatives, 22.5% for New Democrats, and 2.5% Green. If every vote counted equally, on those votes on the 2015 boundaries Conservative voters would elect four MPs, Liberal voters five, and New Democrat voters three. The regional MPs for each party would be the party’s regional candidates who got the most regional votes across the region.

 

Since I’m projecting from the 2011 votes, I’ll start with the 2011 candidates. Depending on local nominations, let’s suppose the seven local MPs were Conservatives Joe Oliver, Mark Adler, Bernard Trottier and John Carmichael; Liberals Judy Sgro and Kirsty Duncan; and New Democrat Peggy Nash.

 

In that case, Liberal voters would also elect three regional MPs, and New Democrats two. That might be Liberal Michael Ignatieff, Martha Hall Findlay and Gerard Kennedy or Rob Oliphant or Ken Dryden; and New Democrats Mike Sullivan and Mary Hynes or Giulio Manfrini.

 

In the 13 ridings of Central Toronto and Scarborough, we see that the partisan tables are turned. On the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results would be seven New Democrats, five Liberals and only one Conservative. Yet those voters cast 38% of their ballots for New Democrats, 32% for Liberals, 26% for Conservatives, and 4% Green. If every vote counted equally, on those votes on the 2015 boundaries Conservative voters would elect three MPs, Liberal voters four, New Democrat voters only five, and Green voters one. (See Technical note below.) Again, the regional MPs for each party would be the party’s regional candidates who got the most regional votes across the region.

 

Suppose the eight local MPs were New Democrats Jack Layton, Olivia Chow, and Matthew Kellway; Liberals Bob Rae, Carolyn Bennett, Jim Karygiannis and John McKay; and Conservative Roxanne James. In that case, Conservative voters would also elect two regional MPs, New Democrats two, and Greens one. That might be New Democrats Rathika Sitsabaiesan and Andrew Cash or Susan Wallace or Natalie Hundt; Conservatives  Maureen Harquail and Marlene Gallyot or Harry Tsai; and Green Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu or Ellen Michelson.

 

Three-region model

 

On the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results in Toronto Northwest--Etobicoke’s new eight ridings would be four Conservative MPs, two Liberals and two New Democrats. Yet those voters cast 37% of their votes for Liberals, while only 33% voted Conservative, 26% NDP, and 2% 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.

 

Suppose the five local MPs were Conservatives Mark Adler and Bernard Trottier, Liberals Judy Sgro and Kirsty Duncan, and New Democrat Peggy Nash. In that case, voters for each party would also elect one regional MP: maybe Liberal Michael Ignatieff, Martha Hall Findlay, Ken Dryden or Gerard Kennedy; Conservative Ted Opitz or Priti Lamba; and New Democrat Mike Sullivan.

 

In Scarborough—Don Valley East’s new eight ridings, on the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results would be four Liberal MPs, two New Democrats and two Conservatives. Yet those voters cast 35% of their votes for Liberals and 35% for Conservatives, along with 27% NDP and 2% 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 still two.

 

Suppose the five local MPs were Liberals Jim Karygiannis and John McKay, New Democrats Dan Harris and Rathika Sitsabaiesan, and Conservative Roxanne James. In that case, Conservative voters would also elect two regional MPs: maybe Joe Daniel and Marlene Gallyot or Harry Tsai. Liberals would elect one regional MP: maybe Yasmin Ratansi or Michelle Simson.

 

In Central Toronto’s new nine ridings, on the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results would be five NDP MPs, two Liberals and two Conservatives. Yet those voters cast only 36% of their votes for New Democrats, while 32% voted Liberal, 26% Conservative, and 4.4% Green. If every vote counted equally, on those votes on the 2015 boundaries Liberal voters would elect three MPs, New Democrat voters three, Conservative voters still two, and Green voters one. (See Technical note below.)

 

Suppose the five local MPs were New Democrats Jack Layton and Olivia Chow, Liberals Bob Rae and Carolyn Bennett, and Conservative Joe Oliver. In that case, voters for each party would also elect one regional MP: maybe New Democrats Andrew Cash or Susan Wallace; Conservative  Maureen Harquail; and Green Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu or Ellen Michelson.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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

 

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 1984.) Parliament would reflect the diverse voters of every province.

 

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.

 

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 in 2013 “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 +/- 3.1%, 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 note

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 their 5% threshold. Similarly it offsets smaller region sizes.

You might wonder how Green Party voters would deserve an MP in Central Toronto out of only 13 or nine MPs. The numbers work out as follows: with the two-region model, Conservatives 3.40 MPs; Liberals 4.17; New Democrats 4.93; Greens 0.50. After the first eleven seats are awarded, the 12^th seat goes to the “highest remainder” (the NDP), and the 13^th seat goes to the next (the Green.) With the three-region model, it’s Conservatives 2.39 MPs; Liberals 2.93; New Democrats 3.27; Greens 0.40. After the first seven seats are awarded, the 8^th seat goes to the “highest remainder” (the Liberals), and the 9^th seat narrowly goes to the next (the Green.)

Would second preferences, used in the Jenkins model, have changed any results in 2011? Sometimes, using the EKOS poll taken April 28-30, 2011, but after the top-up region corrects for the local results, the second preferences make no difference in Toronto.