The grandfather of Canadian
proportional representation models with compensatory MPs (known as MMP) is the
2004 Report of the Law Commission of Canada: “Voting
Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada”
The Law Commission
recommended a mixed member proportional system, like Scotland's and
Germany's. We still elect local MPs as the majority of MPs. The vast
swaths of voters who are denied their preferred MP by the single-MP riding
elections elect regional MPs to top up the local results: every vote
counts. The total MPs match the vote share in the region. The government
will be accountable to MPs reflecting a true majority of voters. See MMP Made Easy.
The Law Commission's model
has one vital improvement on the Scottish model’s regional lists.
Based on the feedback the received during their consultation process, they
found many Canadian voters would like to vote for a specific regional
candidate and hold them accountable. See:
The open-list Mixed Member Proportional system for which the Electoral Reform Committee found consensus.
The open-list Mixed Member Proportional system for which the Electoral Reform Committee found consensus.
You have two votes. It’s
personal and proportional
With your first vote, you
help elect a local MP as we do today. With the second, you also help elect a
few regional MPs: it’s proportional. You can cast a personal vote for the
regional candidate you prefer: it’s personal. See:
The best of both worlds
Voters are guaranteed two
things which equal better local representation:
1.
A local MP who will champion their
area.
2.
An MP whose views best reflect their values, someone they helped elect in their
local riding or local region.
Local ridings don't
double in size. Yes, the riding is larger, but in return, voters with their
diverse voices will have diverse MPs, just as they do in Scotland and Wales.
The region is small enough
that the regional MPs are accountable. Every region will have fair
representation in both government and opposition. See:
A Moderate Mixed Member model can balance all the values Canada’s 2015 election results were unexpected. See:
Why not elect MPs in our
present ridings by a ranked ballot? See:
But how does a mixed member
model work? See:
Why did Germany adopt MMP?
Why did Germany adopt MMP?
Nominating regional
candidates: Each party
would hold regional nomination meetings and/or vote online to nominate their
regional candidates. These would often be the same people nominated locally,
plus a few additional regional candidates. The meeting would decide what rank
order each would have on the regional ballot. But then voters in the region
would have the final choice. See:
Would PR mean coalition
governments? But there have been Many
Coalition Governments in Canada.
How would regional MPs
operate? Most regional
MPs would each cover several ridings. Take Saskatchewan as an example. On the
votes cast in October 2015, Liberal voters in Saskatchewan would have elected
two additional regional MPs. They might be based in Saskatoon, Prince Albert,
or Regina, but they would likely have additional offices in North Battleford,
or Yorkton, or Swift Current, and perhaps elsewhere, just as MP Robert
Kitchen has offices in Estevan, Weyburn and Moosomin. This is just
the way it’s done in Scotland, where two regional MPs from a party will normally
split the region between them for constituency service purposes, and hold
office hours rotating across their region or their part of it. See:
Voters in Prince Edward Island agreed in 2017.
Local MPs become more
independent
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.
Many MMP variations exist. The UK’s Jenkins Commission
recommended a preferential ballot to elect the local MP, and a more
moderate version with local regions averaging only eight MPs, more accountable,
less proportional. Or some Canadians might prefer the no-list model used in the
German Province of Baden-Wurttemberg. See:
Canada’s Liberals have
needed PR for a long time. See:
Why closed lists would be
rejected in Canada was accurately predicted by the Jenkins Commission in the
UK: they said 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.” The 2007 Ontario model which failed to win
support in a referendum had closed province-wide lists, like the P.E.I. model
similarly rejected. See:
Since the number of MPs from
each province would not change, no constitutional amendment is required. See:
Many Canadians wanted to see
how proportional representation would have changed the 2011 election outcome.
How would it have worked in your region? See:
When Sweden changed from
closed list to flexible list, some women feared male backlash would result in
women being moved down the list. As it turned out, more women were moved up
than down. Similarly, many Canadian voters might jump at the chance to vote for
a good female regional candidate, especially if their party had nominated a man
for the local seat. See:
What would Swedish MMP look
like? A mixed member model with multi-MP districts in large urban areas is
described here:
