The
Bélanger solution
Looking
at the Canadian scene today, what Liberal can tolerate thinking of an
accidental majority Conservative government elected by 40% of voters?
Anyone
who forgets Stephen Harper in 2011 cannot forget that Doug Ford did so in 2018.
Liberal
Convention delegates in 2014 voted overwhelmingly for Resolution 31 from the
federal caucus for electoral reform: a preferential ballot and/or a form of
proportional representation. The preferential ballot is off the table: As
Justin Trudeau wisely said Feb. 10, 2017, ”I have heard very clearly that
people think it would favour Liberals too much. And therefore I’m not going
near it, because I am not going to do something that everyone is convinced is
going to favour one party over another.” And anyway, it would never pass the
present House, no other party would support it.
Can an accidental Conservative majority be prevented quickly and simply? Without a completely new system with new
riding boundaries? A fast solution while the discussion continues about whether
to adopt full proportional representation, how a PR model for Canada would
work, and whether a Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform is a better way to
settle these questions than holding a referendum?
How
about a semi-proportional solution: keep the present ridings, and add 42
regional MPs to top-up the results from each region? These 42 extra MPs will
not only make accidental majority governments far less likely, they would also
make every vote count to some extent, and give all parties MPs from each
region.
This 42 is the number of additional MPs the late Mauril Bélanger liked. He was MP for Ottawa-Vanier for 21 years, one of the Liberal MP supporters of proportional representation, and the man whose bill changed "in all thy sons command" to "in all of us command." :
This 42 is the number of additional MPs the late Mauril Bélanger liked. He was MP for Ottawa-Vanier for 21 years, one of the Liberal MP supporters of proportional representation, and the man whose bill changed "in all thy sons command" to "in all of us command." :
It’s
a moderate number: 60 additional MPs were recommended by "A Future
Together," the report of the Pepin-Robarts Commission (Task Force on
Canadian Unity) in 1979. Pierre Trudeau called
this “an excellent idea.”
A “national conversation?”
That isn’t just a partisan fix. How can we have a "national conversation" in Parliament when more than half our voices are shut out? When some voices get a megaphone - such as Conservatives occupying every seat in Saskatchewan and Liberals occupying every seat in Toronto - while others are silenced? In 2019, this model would have let voters for every major party elect MPs from each province except PEI, and Greens elect MPs from five provinces.
Does
the Bélanger solution work?
Is
42 extra MPs really enough? Would it have prevented a Harper false majority in
2011? Checking the 2011 results, those 42 MPs would have been 17 Liberals, 12
New Democrats, 3 Greens, 5 Bloc, and 5 Conservatives (from Atlantic Canada and
Quebec). Harper would have had 171 MPs out of 350, four short of half.
I’m
assuming the 42 MPs are divided among the provinces in proportion to their
present numbers of MPs. My 2011 simulation generates two Liberal regional MPs
from the BC Lower Mainland, one from the rest of BC, one from Northern Alberta, one from Southern Alberta, one from Manitoba, two from Southwest Ontario, two from
South Central Ontario, one from Peel-Halton, two from Toronto, two from Northern and
Central Ontario, one from Central and Western Quebec, and one from Eastern
Quebec.
Can
an expansion of the House be justified? In fact, it is inevitable. After the
next census, the smaller provinces will have their present seats protected,
while the growing large provinces will be entitled to more MPs. This resulted
in 30 more MPs in 2015. The next census will have a similar result, maybe even
more.
The
same ballot, with best runners-up? or open-list?
With
20 regions, they each have an average of 17 local MPs and 2 regional MPs. One alternative,
keeping our present ballot, is to elect the one or two local candidates of the
under-represented party who got the highest vote percent without winning. That’s
the “best runners-up” model used by the German province of Baden-Wurttemberg
and by Sweden. Or, like a
normal Mixed Member Proportional system, we could elect the regional MPs from
open regional lists. With the two-vote ballot you vote for your local MP, and
you also vote for your favourite regional candidate of the party you want to
see in government. This option makes regional MPs almost as accountable as under
the 30 regions possible with normal MMP.
An immediate solution
There
must be many Liberal MPs who will like this. Not because of how it would have
worked in 2019 (six more Liberal MPs from the West: Ralph Goodale, Randy
Boissonnault, Amarjeet Sohi, Nirmala Naidoo (Calgary) or Kent Hehr, Stephen
Fuhr, and Nikki Macdonald or Mary Ann Murphy), but because it would provide a good
chance that no accidental majority government will result from the next
election.
(Note: revised Nov. 30, 2020)