New Brunswick voters lost in this
year’s election, as the party with more votes got fewer seats, as in 2006.
With only 31.9% of the votes, the
New Brunswick PCs have won 22 seats, while the Liberals with 37.8% of the votes
have won only 21 seats. Since the potential Conservative ally, the People’s
Alliance of New Brunswick, has three seats while the Greens also have three
seats, the Conservatives claim they will form the next government.
This "plurality reversal" with a spread of 5.9% of the votes is the worst across Canada in 52 years. In the Quebec election of 1966 the Union Nationale won more seats than the Liberals despite having 6.5% fewer votes.
This "plurality reversal" with a spread of 5.9% of the votes is the worst across Canada in 52 years. In the Quebec election of 1966 the Union Nationale won more seats than the Liberals despite having 6.5% fewer votes.
Fair Province-wide result: 19
Liberals, 16 PCs, 6 Greens, 6 People’s Alliance, 2 NDP
But a fair and proportional voting
system would have let every vote count. With 49 MLAs in New Brunswick, those
Liberal voters deserved to elect 19 MLAs against only 16 PCs. Voters for the
Greens and People’s Alliance deserved six MLAs each, while the 5% who voted NDP
deserved two MLAs.
Instead
of a coalition representing only 44% of voters, the new government would have
been accountable to the majority of voters.
Donald
Wright, a professor of political science at the University of New Brunswick,
says: “Darwin was right. Ecosystems need genetic diversity … finally, we have
some in the legislature.”
Worse, New Brunswick appears more
divided into linguistic groups than it really is.
New Brunswick’s Commission on
Legislative Democracy proposed four regions
The
New Brunswick Commission on Legislative Democracy proposed a proportional
voting system in 2004 with four regions, so that voters in each region would be
fairly represented in both government and opposition. Their Mixed Member Proportional
model was similar to the model PEI voters chose in their plebiscite in November
2016.
In the 12 ridings of Northern New
Brunswick, heavily francophone, the Liberals won all but one seat. However,
those voters cast 24% of their votes for the PCs, 8.9% for the Greens and 8.5%
for the NDP. They could have elected regional MLAs like PCs Danny Soucy and Jeannot
Volpe, Green Charles Thériault who won 32% of the local vote and New Democrat Jean
Maurice Landry who won 30%.
Conversely, in the 12 ridings of
the South West, heavily English-speaking, Liberal voters elected only one MLA.
They deserved two more, like incumbents John Ames and Rick Doucet. Green voters
also deserved an MLA like Deputy Leader Marilyn Merritt-Gray, while People’s Alliance voters
deserved two like Jim Bedford and Craig Dykeman.
In
the South East someone like Michel Boudreau (past-President of the New Brunswick Federation of Labour) would have been a
regional NDP MLA. In Central New Brunswick
Liberal Bill Fraser could have returned as a Regional MLA, while someone like Hanwell councillor
Susan Jonah would have become a second Green MLA for the region.
I’m
not talking about a closed-list system. The open-regional-list Mixed
Member Proportional system means every MLA has faced the voters. That’s
the system PEI voters chose last November, with a workable ballot as you can see here. That's also the way the BC NDP wants the Mixed Member
system to work: voters would cast two ballots: one for a local MLA and
one for a regional representative. It’s also the model on which the federal Electoral Reform Committee found
consensus: a local and personalized proportional representation model. (The 2004 Commission recommended a closed-list MMP model, but Fair Vote Canada no longer recommends that version.)
You have two votes
You have two votes: one for your local MLA, and one for a regional MLA from your local region. You cast your second vote for a party’s regional candidate you prefer, which counts as a vote for that party. This is the same practical model used in Scotland, with one vital improvement: Canadian voters would like to vote for a specific regional candidate and hold them accountable.
The best of both worlds
Would
proportional representation hurt small communities? Just the opposite: voters
are guaranteed two things which equal better local representation:
1.
A local MLA who will champion their
area.
2.
An MLA whose views best reflect their values, someone they helped elect in
their local district or local region.
No
longer does one person claim to speak for everyone in the district. No longer
does one party claim unbridled power with only 40% support. Local districts are
bigger than today, but in return you have competing MLAs: a local MLA, and
about five regional MLAs from your local region.
Parties will work together
Parties
will, unless one party had outright majority support, have to work together -
to earn our trust where others have broken it, and to show that a new kind of
governance is possible. Research clearly shows that proportionately-elected
governments and cooperative decision-making produce better policy outcomes and
sustainable progress on major issues over the long term.
Some
fear-mongers claim proportional representation favours extremists. However, as
a former conservative MLA in British Columbia, Nick Loenen, said recently “The best guarantee against abuse of government power is to share that power
among the many, rather than the few."
Regional nominations
Typically,
party members will nominate local candidates first, then hold a regional
nomination process. Often the regional candidates will include the local
candidates, plus a few regional-only candidates who will add diversity and
balance to the regional slate. In order to ensure democratic nominations, it would be useful to deny
taxpayer subsidy to any party not nominating democratically. 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.
2006
In
2006 New Brunswick saw a sad irony: Bernard's Lord's PCs had planned a
referendum on the Commission on Legislative Democracy's recommended PR
system, which Lord supported. When a resignation forced an early election, he
won the most votes but the Liberals won the most seats, and
shelved the Commission on Legislative Democracy's recommendation.
Note:
my regional simulation, due to the breakdown between the four regions, happens
to cost the People’s Alliance a seat, to the benefit of the PCs. This is
because the PA cast their appeal mainly to the South West and Central regions, and
got only 3% in the North and 4% in the South East, too few to elect anyone, so
those 6,806 votes were ineffective. Result: 19 Liberals, 17 PCs, 6 Greens,
5 People’s Alliance, 2 NDP.
Technical note: the
New Brunswick Commission on Legislative Democracy proposed four regions which
mostly had 14 MLAs each, nine local and five regional. At that time New
Brunswick had 55 MLAs. Today that has shrunk to 49, so most regions have 12
MLAs. I am still using five regional MLAs for each region, leaving seven or eight local
MLAs. That means 40.8% of the MLAs are regional, which matches the 40% BC is
looking at. A region with only four regional MLAs, only one-third, would not be
enough to correct the disproportional results in New Brunswick’s disparate
regions.
2 comments:
I believe that the system proposed in the 2004 report by the NB Commission on Legislative Democracy was closed-list MMP. See https://www.electionsnb.ca/content/dam/enb/pdf/cld/CLDFinalReport-e.pdf
Indeed. They were concerned that the rural areas would not elect many regional MLAs under open list. However, I deal with that issue here:
http://wilfday.blogspot.com/2015/04/will-proportional-representation-swamp.html
Post a Comment