Far-fetched scenario #1

 Far-fetched scenario #1 (Oct. 14, 2024)

When Quebec’s Charest government tabled a bill for a Proportional Representation system for Quebec in 2004, after going through their caucus it featured little 5-MNA regions – 3 local MLAs, and 2 regional MNAs for top-up seats.

There was an all party-consensus for PR in Quebec since the 2003 election. But after public hearings and negative reaction to this model, the Select Committee of the National Assembly recommended in April 2006 that the model be changed to better reflect Quebec’s political diversity. More proportional, that is, with larger regions. But the Quebec Liberal caucus were not too happy with more diverse MLAs. The model went back to the drawing boards, where it stayed. For years, up to the Liberal defeat in 2012, the government’s Minister for Democratic Reform kept saying the government was still committed to PR, the problem was the model.

When Justin Trudeau was first nominated in 2007 and elected as an MP in 2008, the only discussion of PR among Liberals in Quebec was at the provincial level, where the issue was the size of the regions.

In the 2006 Liberal leadership race Justin Trudeau had supported Stephane Dion on the final ballot. In April 2012 Stephane Dion proposed a “moderate PR” model with five-seat regions called “P3.”

In January 2013 Justin Trudeau was running for the Liberal leadership, and stopped in Port Hope, where I got the chance for a brief chat. I asked him to support the report of the Law Commission of Canada (2004). He seemed not very familiar with it, and asked “how big are the regions?” I gave him an honest answer: “in the range of 8 to 14.” I wonder what he would have said if I had answered “could be as small as five.” But he rejected my answer, and said he could not support that.

Fast-forward to today. The Liberals face a wipeout by the Conservatives even if they win only 40% of the vote. Justin Trudeau is still talking of the ranked ballot as the way to prevent this, but the NDP will never support a system which usually favours no party but the Liberals.

A historic compromise

Now, suppose a Liberal leader (either Justin Trudeau or a successor) proposes a historic compromise: an agreement with the NDP for immediate adoption of two bills. The first will implement a ranked ballot for the next election, but only for one election. The second bill will implement a moderate proportional system, a mixed-member proportional model with five-MP regions – the Charest 2004 model. (It also had a few 3-MP regions and a few 7-MP regions). The government would immediately appoint Boundaries Commission for each province to group the ridings used this year into regions of an average of five MPs, to be used for the new system in the next election after this year. Elections Canada would want seven months to implement the new PR system; they would have it.

This presupposes that the 2025 election would, with ranked ballots, produce a Liberal-NDP alliance to last until implementation of the new system. On current polls, I think it would.

A Quick PR system

Look at this latest appeal for electoral reform, from Winnipeg author Alex Passey: “what better time than now to finally act on that dusty old election promise of electoral reform? After all, the Liberals have been stoking the fires with fears of what a majority government under the Pierre Poilievre Conservatives would mean for Canada and the world. . . . Introducing any of the many voting systems geared towards more proportional representation for the next election would almost certainly prevent the Conservatives from achieving a majority government. And all those arguments the Liberals made back in 2015 still stand.  . . . the Liberals have a chance to make history in these twilight days of their regime, by giving Canada the system of real representative government that they promised. There is still plenty of time and it would pass a parliamentary vote easily enough, as the under-represented parties would surely support such a motion.”

Plenty of time for the next election?

To do it properly, we would need a Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform, at least 121 people, who would spend months getting educated, more months holding hearings, and more months deliberating. Then we would need the usual Boundaries Commissions in each province to set up the new districts. Then Elections Canada would want seven months to organize and train for the new system.

But people keep saying this.

What if a new Liberal leader had an open mind? Can we find a quick system of proportional representation? One letting everyone still have a local MP, and using the new boundaries that have just come into effect?

Sure: the Mixed Member Proportional system used in Germany, New Zealand, Scotland, and others. Usually it would still have 56 or 58 percent of the MPs elected from local ridings, but for a quick model, we could have 51% elected from local ridings: just pair up today’s local ridings, and top up the results by electing regional MPs so that each party gets the share of the seats that its voters deserve.

You have two votes, one for your local MP, and one for the party you support. Your second vote helps elect regional MPs for top-up seats. In New Zealand, about 31% of voters vote for a local candidate of a different party than their party vote, giving local MPs an independent base of support.

Why would Liberal MPs in strongholds like Toronto agree to give up some of their seats? To stop a party (like the Conservatives) winning a false majority. And so that Liberal voters in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Southwestern Ontario, and elsewhere, can be fairly represented. As Stephane Dion loved to say “I do not see why we should maintain a voting system that makes our major parties appear less national and our regions more politically opposed than they really are.” 

Who gets elected to those regional seats? Using the model recommended by the Law Commission of Canada, your second vote would be for the regional candidate you prefer. A vote for a candidate counts for a vote for that candidate’s party.

But some candidates, such as incumbent MPs, have already been nominated for the new local ridings adopted by the Electoral Boundaries Commissions.  They can remain nominated for the double-sized riding, but in case of overlap, I expect one of the two candidates will become a regional candidate, unless there is a nearby vacant nomination available. Local decision.

Who would design the regions, and pair up the local ridings? I see three provinces where the ridings pair themselves. In the other seven, independent Commissions for each province could make short work of this job, validated by citizen panels. To prevent local sweeps, I am assuming regions of around 14 to 20 MPs. In Ontario that’s 7 regions ranging from 16 MPs to 24, average 17.4.

What would this look like? Just as an example, using the votes cast in 2021, but if the election were held next year, I doubt the People’s Party would get over 5% of the vote, and I am assuming a 5% threshold would be applied in each province. In 2021 the PPC got 5.4% in Ontario, but for simplicity I’ll ignore them. Today it’s the Conservatives who are under-represented, despite getting more votes than the Liberals, but it’s the Liberals who are at risk.

In Toronto’s 24 ridings, where the Liberals won all 24 with only 52% of the votes, on the votes cast in 2021 they would elect the 12 local MPs plus one regional MP, while the Conservatives would elect six regional MPs and the NDP five.

In Southwest Ontario’s 16 ridings, on the 2021 votes transposed to the new boundaries, today that’s 10 Conservatives with only 40% of the votes, 4 Liberals, and 2 NDP. With the twinned ridings, the Conservatives get only 7 MPs (6 local and 1 regional), while the Liberals would elect 5 MPs and the NDP 4.

What would Alberta look like? Instead of 35 Conservative MPs and 2 New Democrats (Randy Boissonnault’s slim majority evaporates with the new boundaries of Edmonton Centre), it would have 23 Conservative MPs (18 local, 5 regional), 7 Liberals (4 in Southern Alberta, 3 in Northern) and 7 New Democrats (3 in Southern Alberta, 4 in Northern). Similarly, Saskatchewan would have, not 13 Conservatives (new boundaries give the Liberals the Northern seat), but 9 (7 local, 2 provincial) plus 2 Liberals and 3 New Democrats.

Or take the 18 constituencies of Eastern Ontario. On the 2021 votes transposed to the new boundaries, that’s 9 Liberals, 9 Conservatives. With the twinned ridings, we get 3 Liberals and 6 Conservatives. Adding the nine top-up regional MPs, we get 3+5=8 Liberals, 6+1=7 Conservatives, and 3 NDP.

The total in Ontario on the 2021 votes would be 53 Liberals, 46 Conservatives and 23 NDP, assuming a 5% threshold. Maybe the Greens' 2021 total of 2.3% would become at least 5%. In that case, their Ontario total would likely be 3 MPs. In BC, this model would make little change on the 2021 votes except at least one more Green MP, but it would prevent a false majority sweep by one party. In Quebec, the new boundaries transfer two Liberal seats to the Bloc, and this model would take four more seats from the Liberals but give seven more seats to the NDP, while taking nine seats from the over-represented Bloc and giving six to the Conservatives.

Why am I using a 5% threshold? The Green total in BC, PEI and New Brunswick was already over 5%. In fact, on the 2021 votes this model would have elected Green candidate Anna Keenan as a PEI MP. If I was presenting to a Citizens Assembly I would argue for 4%. However, for a quick PR system the 5% used in Germany and New Zealand should be non-controversial, avoiding the risk of micro-parties.

How do we pair up the ridings in BC, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, which have odd numbers of ridings? One riding is left unchanged, as Labrador must be. Do we give the three Territories an extra MP each, as recommended by the Law Commission of Canada, so they have one locally elected MP and one proportional top-up? I would, but for simplicity, not today.

Canada-wide results on this model: Liberal 125, Conservative 125, NDP 65, Bloc 25, Green 3. (Note that the new boundaries add 5 seats and already give 7 to the Conservatives and 2 to the Bloc, taking 3 from the Liberals and 1 from the NDP. My calculation assumes the votes as cast in 2021 but on new boundaries, with Green Party seats only on that basis, not adding the bump they may get, and no People’s Party seats.

Do Greens have more reasons for optimism than the PPC? Polls since Feb. 9, 2024, have averaged 4.3% for the Greens, almost double the 2.3% their disastrous 2021 campaign gave them. By contrast, the PPC has dropped from 4.9% in 2021 to 2.6% in polls since Feb. 9, 2024. In Ontario, in 2021 the Greens got 2.2%, presumably 4.1% today. Once every vote counts, the Greens can expect to do better.   

Final point: A Liberal-NDP agreement on quick PR might imply coalition-building and co-operation could be offered to voters ahead of time, as they are in other countries. Why not?

Brian Mulroney`s Legacy was crippled by First-Past-The-Post

The late Brian Mulroney`s legacy was crippled by Canada`s disastrous 1993 election, when his 1988 majority collapsed to 2 seats under Kim Campbell, who deserved better.

But wait a minute. In 1993 the Bloc Quebecois got only 13.5% of the vote, standing in fourth place, yet formed the Official Opposition with 54 seats. At the same time Kim Campbell`s PCs got 16.0% worth only 2 seats, while Reform got 18.7% of the votes but its 52 seats left it short of the Bloc. Was this election rigged?

Yes, by First Past The Post. A few years later, beginning in 2001 the Law Commission of Canada under Prof. Nathalie Des Rosiers took a look at that result. In their 2004 Report ``Voting Counts`` they noted Prof. Henry Milner`s conclusion: after the 1997 federal election “the results of Canada’s last two federal elections are becoming political science textbook cases of the distortions under [first-past-the-post].” “The first-past-the-post electoral system, with its two dominant parties, appeared unable to accommodate the pressures of regionalism.” Our winner-take-all voting system exaggerates Canada’s regional differences.

So what would the results have been under proportional representation on the votes cast in 1993, calculated province-by-province, with a 5% threshold in each province, and three extra MPs for the Territories? Liberals 131, Reform 58, PCs 51, Bloc 39, NDP 19, total 298. The Liberals would have had no artificial majority, needing NDP support. The Leader of the Opposition would have been Preston Manning, not Lucien Bouchard.

The Law Commission in 2004 recommended Canada adopt a Mixed Member Proportional system, as used in Germany, Scotland and New Zealand but with open regional lists. “Two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons should be elected in constituency races using first-past-the-post (in larger ridings, three ridings becoming two), and the remaining one-third should be elected from regional party lists” to top-up the results by a flexible list system that provides voters with the option of either endorsing the party list or of voting for a candidate within the list. In addition, one top-up seat each should be allotted to Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and Yukon.

As for the 1993 PCs, instead of Jean Charest being one of only two MPs, he and Kim Campbell would have had company, under no pressure to merge with Reform. These names will bring back memories of the end of the Mulroney era:

18 MPs from Ontario (maybe Ministers Perrin Beatty, Rob Nicholson, Tom Hockin, Doug Lewis, Garth Turner, Paul Dick, and Pauline Browes, maybe former Speaker John Bosley, and maybe David MacDonald, Barbara Greene, Patrick Boyer, Bill Attewell and Alan Redway);

9 more MPs from Quebec (maybe Ministers Gilles Loiselle, Pierre Blais, Gerry Weiner, Monique Landry, Jean Corbeil, and Pierre Vincent, and maybe Deputy Speaker Andrée Champagne and Jean-Pierre Blackburn);

5 MPs from BC (Kim Campbell, and maybe Ministers Tom Siddon and Mary Collins);

4 MPs from Alberta (maybe Ministers Jim Edwards and Bobbie Sparrow, and Lee Richardson and Jim Hawkes);

3 MPs from Nova Scotia (Maybe Minister Peter McCreath, and maybe Bill Casey);

2 more MPs from New Brunswick (maybe Minister Bernard Valcourt)

2 MPs from Manitoba (maybe Minister Charles Mayer, and maybe Dorothy Dobbie);

2 MPs from Saskatchewan (maybe Minister Larry Schneider);

2 MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador (maybe Minister Ross Reid); and 1 MP from PEI, and 1 MP from Nunavut.

How would regional MPs serve residents? See how it worked in Scotland in 2013. 

The MMP ballot would look like this ballot that PEI voters chose in their 2016 plebiscite, unlike the closed-list MMP model Ontario voters did not support in 2007. The open-regional-list mixed-member model is used in the German province of Bavaria.

You have two votes. One is for your local MP. The second helps elect regional MPs for the top-up seats. All MPs have faced the voters. No one is guaranteed a seat. The region is small enough that the regional MPs are accountable.  

Competing MPs: You have a local MP who will champion your community, and at least four competing regional MPs, normally including one whose views best reflect your values, someone you helped elect in your local district or local region. 

The Jenkins Commission in the UK had a colourful explanation accurately predicting 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.” 

Of course, this is only a simulation. In any election, as Prof. Dennis Pilon says: "Now keep in mind that, when you change the voting system, you also change the incentives that affect the kinds of decisions that voters might make. For instance, we know that, when every vote counts, voters won't have to worry about splitting the vote, or casting a strategic vote. Thus, we should expect that support for different parties might change." NDP voters would not have switched to the Liberals to stop Reform.

Does Canada need a new Centre Party?

 Two prominent “Blue Liberals” wrote June 30 “Where is the Purple Party?

John Manley is a former deputy prime minister. Martha Hall Findlay is a former MP who ran for the Liberal leadership. They wrote “As former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole pointed out in his final speech in the House of Commons: “Canada has been slowing down at a time when the world is asking us to speed up.” Former Liberal finance minister Bill Morneau stressed this same concern about Canada dramatically falling behind and not achieving its potential in his recent book, Where To From Here. “. . . many Canadians might now be responsive to a more centrist approach, perhaps a “radical centre.” “What is needed is openness to ideas unconstrained by the labels of “right” and “left,” working instead on moving forward. We and a good number of other Canadians have, over the years, joked in asking, “Where is the Purple Party?” Not in the middle, but taking the best from the “red,” and the best from the “blue.”

Of course, the winner-take-all First Past The Post system discourages any third parties.

However, making every vote count with proportional representation has allowed centrist governments in Europe. Germany has six parties: the governing centre-left coalition excludes the Left Party and the two conservative parties, but includes the centrist liberal Free Democrats.

In the 16 German states, ten have centrist coalition governments. The national three-party left-centre coalition is in power in Rhineland-Palatinate, while a three-party Grand Coalition (Christian Democrats, Social Democrats and Free Democrats) governs Saxony-Anhalt. In seven states the centrist coalition is a Grand Coalition of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats and/or Greens. In Bavaria the centrist Free Voters are in the governing coalition That leaves two states with a Social Democrat-Green coalition, one state with a Social Democrat one-party government, and three states where the Left Party is part of the governing coalition; but nowhere is the hard-right AfD in cabinet.      

It's not just Germany. After last year’s election in Denmark, the governing Social Democrats decided to form a centrist coalition of the three largest parties, the other two being the centre-right liberals and the centrist Moderates. Austria has a conservative-Green coalition government.

By contrast, look at the one country where a new centrist party tried to beat the odds by taking power in a winner-take-all system: Macron’s party in France. By a fluke, he did, once.

The 2012 election for the French National Assembly, using a winner-take-all two-round system, followed the victory of Socialist Party candidate François Hollande as President, defeating incumbent conservative Nicolas Sarkozy. The Socialist Party and allies won 58% of the seats, while the conservatives won 40%. Rightist Marine Le Pen’s National Front won 14% in the first round but few of its candidates advanced to the second round and only two won seats. Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s Left Front got only 7% in the first round and won only 10 seats. Both Le Pen and Mélenchon were defeated.

Centrist François Bayrou had run third for President with 19% in 2007, but ran fifth in 2012 with only 9%, and in the National Assembly election his party got less than 2% and only 2 seats. A total two-party environment.

But in 2016 Emmanuel Macron, a minister in Hollande’s Socialist government, resigned to launch his own new centrist movement to support his presidential campaign. Centrist François Bayrou announced support for Macron.

Luckily for Macron, incumbent François Hollande had become so unpopular that he did not seek re-election in 2017. Hollande’s candidate Manuel Valls was defeated for nomination as the Socialist Party candidate by his left-wing rival Benoit Hamon, but Mélenchon out-shone him. Also boosting Macron’s campaign was the scandal of the moderate conservative (Republican) candidate François Fillon, who won his party’s primary but the national financial prosecutor then placed him under formal investigation for misuse of public funds and fraud, for putting his wife and children on the payroll. Marine Le Pen became the strongest conservative candidate, and the vote for the first round was Macron 24%, Le Pen 21%, Fillon 20%, Mélenchon 19.6%, and Hamon only 6.4%. For the second round, to stop Le Pen both Fillon and Hamon supported Macron who got 66% of the vote.

But Macron’s project had no roots. In 2021 in the 12 Regional Council elections the winning traditional parties in 2015 all retained control in 2021: moderate conservatives in seven regions, Socialists and their allies in five regions. Macron’s centrists got only 11% overall, ranging from 11.1% to 16.6% of the votes in 8 regions, while in 3 they were under 10%. In those 11 regions they were shut out of positions in the cabinets of the regional government. In only one region were they part of a grand coalition with moderate conservatives against Le Pen.

And Macron’s project failed to show enough staying power. in the 2022 election Macron lost his majority, getting only 245 seats. The new Left Alliance got 153 seats, Le Pen 89, moderate conservatives 64, others 26. 

A first incremental step to proportionality in 2025, along with a Citizens Assembly.

Will the Liberals accept the NDP motion for a Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform? Well, for two weeks they filibustered the NDP motion for Katie Telford to be questioned. But when Jagmeet stood his ground “very firmly” the Liberals blinked, showing the Liberal-NDP confidence and supply agreement was solid. The Liberal MPs on the PROC Committee already voted for a Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform. They should be expected to do so again. 

Now that the CASA agreement seems on track to continue to 2025, the next election will likely be under the new Boundaries, which apply to any election called after April 2024, more or less. 

A Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform will be no help in a 2025 election. Could the Liberals accept an additional element: a small first step? The NDP and Greens already offered this option in their Supplementary Opinion to the ERRE Report: “The government could decide to take an incremental approach by adding regional compensatory MPs in groups of 30-45 over the next three or four elections.” 

The Liberals don’t want to risk the Conservatives getting unbridled power without a majority of votes. The Conservatives similarly don’t want the Liberals to have unbridled power without a majority of votes. An incremental step would give Parliament more diverse voices, give voters more choices, reduce toxic partisanship, and reflect the democratic value of making every vote count, to a limited extent. 

The new Boundaries are for 343 Electoral Districts, an increase of only 5 from the current 338. However, the population of Canada increased by 10.501% from 2011 to 2021. That could easily justify adding 35 seats, not just 5. Therefore, the first step could be adding 30 regional compensatory seats. 

The 30 additional seats would be layered over the 340 Districts in the 10 provinces (plus 3 in the Territories), established by the current Boundaries Commissions (see list below). The additional MPs would go to the most unrepresented voters in each region. The ballot would not change.

What would that look like?

A real PR system would likely have a 5% threshold. An incremental step is aimed at major parties, so it would want to use a higher threshold. I am using 8%. Compared to 5%, this costs the PPC four seats. (Bloc Québecois voters are represented in each Quebec region now.) 

We do not yet know the transposed results on the new 343 districts, so I’ll have to start with the 2021 results. I allocate the 30 additional seats by the Swedish method: an “adjustment seat” to the most unrepresented party in the region. Each party has a quotient in each region, which is its number of votes in the region divided by (2n+1), where n is the number of MPs elected. If a party has no MP in the region, its quotient simply is the number of votes it received. In a region, the party with the highest quotient is awarded an additional seat, and a new quotient is then calculated for that region before the next seat is distributed. A region can thus receive more than one additional seat. 

Simulation

My simulation gives the 30 additional MPs to three parties: the NDP 20 in eight provinces, the underrepresented Conservatives 6 (2 Montreal, 2 Vancouver, 1 GTA and 1 PEI), and the underrepresented Liberals 4 (2 BC outside Vancouver, 1 Alberta, and 1 Eastern Quebec). Adding those 30 MPs to the 2021 results, we get 163 Liberals, 125 Conservatives, 45 NDP, 33 Bloc, and 2 Greens. A majority of the 368 seats is 185. The risk of any one party getting 185 is reduced. 

With only 30 additional MPs, I assume they would be the “best runners-up” in each region, the defeated candidates with the highest % of support.  All three parties would have a more representative caucus. I make the additional 30 MPs 18 women and 3 indigenous. 

Note: this is only a simulation. In any election, as Prof. Dennis Pilon says: "Now keep in mind that, when you change the voting system, you also change the incentives that affect the kinds of decisions that voters might make. For instance, we know that, when every vote counts, voters won't have to worry about splitting the vote, or casting a strategic vote. Thus, we should expect that support for different parties might change." 

For the Liberals that would be one from Alberta like Ben Henderson, Edmonton City Councillor since 2007, who ran in Amarjeet Sohi’s old seat. One from the BC Interior like Kelowna’s Tim Krupa, who went from Kelowna to an MBA at Oxford, worked in the PMO for three years, and on to Harvard and the CPP, giving a voice in caucus (and cabinet?) to the BC Interior where the Liberals were shut out. Another from BC like Dr. Nikki Macdonald, University of Victoria Professor and environment leader. And one from Eastern Quebec like their new star candidate, well-known unionist Ann Gingras, long-time President of the CSN’s regional council, previously a critic of the Liberals but recruited this time by Justin Trudeau himself. 

The Conservatives would not have lost two of their Vancouver incumbents: Alice Wong and Tamara Jensen, and their Richmond Hill incumbent Leona Alleslev. They would have gained their star Montreal candidate, Frank Cavallaro, a household name across Montreal as a radio journalist and the main weather presenter at CFCF-CTV Montreal for 17 years, and another Montreal candidate Terry Roberts, along with former banker Jody Sanderson in PEI. 

The NDP would have elected Edmonton Métis union labour relations officer Charmaine St. Germain and former Edmonton school trustee Heather MacKenzie, Executive Director of Solar Alberta. Saskatoon’s Robert Doucette, former president of the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan. From Winnipeg, community development worker Melissa Chung-Mowat, a second generation Chinese Canadian and a Métis woman. Sudbury’s Nadia Verrelli, university professor. In Toronto, Alejandra Bravo (now a city councillor); school trustee Norm Di Pasquale; and former FoodShare Director Paul Taylor, with origins in Saint Kitts. London engineer Dirka Prout, with origins in Trinidad. CUPE economist Angella MacEwen. Former Queen’s professor, Guyanese-born Vic Sahai. Former MPs Tracey Ramsey and Malcolm Allen. Montreal star candidate Nimâ Machouf; lawyer and former Montreal MP Ève Péclet; former Quebec MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau; and Tommy Bureau in Quebec City. Moncton’s Serge Landry, Canadian Labour Congress Representative. Former MLA Lisa Roberts in Halifax. Mary Shortall, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour. 

The provincial breakdown would be:

British Columbia 43+4 (in 2 regions)

Alberta 37+3

Saskatchewan 14+1

Manitoba 14+1

Ontario 122+10 (in 4 regions)

Quebec 78+7 (in 3 regions)

New Brunswick 10+1

PEI 4+1

Nova Scotia 11+1

Nfld & Lab.  7+1

 

Before the 2021 election, I described another variation of a compromise model:

http://wilfday.blogspot.com/2020/11/when-pierre-trudeau-supported.html 

If Saskatchewan had a democratic voting system in 2020 . . .

After the 2020 election, communities in all of Saskatchewan outside Regina, Saskatoon and the two northern ridings have no voice in the opposition. They have no local voice to question any government action or inaction. Their regions face one-party rule.

With a regional open-list Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system such as the Law Commission of Canada recommended, if Saskatchewan voters voted as they did in 2020 (and assuming the Green vote doubled with PR, as one can normally assume), they would have elected 38 Saskatchewan Party MLAs, 20 New Democrats, and three Greens.

With MMP, we still elect the majority of MLAs locally. Voters unrepresented by the local results top them up by electing regional MLAs. The total MLAs match the vote share. With the regional "Open list" version, voters can vote for whomever they like out of the regional candidates nominated by the party's regional nomination process. Like this ballot that won the 2016 referendum in PEI.  

See MMP Made Easy.

I’m using a model with almost 40% of the MLAs elected regionally, in five regions. Eleven local ridings would generally become seven larger ones. My simulation has 39 local MLAs and 22 elected regionally. 

Assumption about Green Party

I am not a Green Party supporter, but it is well-known that pre-election polls generally show Green Party support at double the level of Green votes cast on election day. Half of Green Party supporters vote “strategically” for another party, or stay home. When every vote counts, the Green Party vote will generally double. In the 2020 election, 2.25% of votes went to the Green Party, so my projection assumes this will become 4.5%. Most proportional voting system have a threshold of 5% or 4% of the votes for a party to win representation. With only 61 MLAs, the right threshold for Saskatchewan would be 4%. In 2020, the new Buffalo Party got 2.54%, but I have no reason to project their vote under PR to go above 4%, so my projection does not include Buffalo Party MLAs. 

Five regions

Problems with your Area Clinic in Weyburn, Moose Jaw, Swift Current, Rosetown, North Battleford, Prince Albert, Tisdale, or Yorkton? Who're ya gonna call?

The 12 MLAs from the southwest (Moose Jaw-Swift Current-Weyburn-Kindersley) are all from the Saskatchewan Party. Although 20% of those voters voted NDP, they have no voice in the opposition. Instead of a SP sweep, my spreadsheet projects two New Democrats, once NDP votes count equally with SP voters, and a Green. That would be the two regional NDP candidates who got the most votes across the region. Maybe NDP voters would have elected Melissa Patterson from Moose Jaw and Stefan Rumpel from Swift Current, and Green voters Kimberly Soo Goodtrack from Wood Mountain Lakota First Nation. (Stefan Rumpel told voters he wants proportional representation because it can increase diversity in government.)

The 12 MLAs in that region would become eight local, four regional. The SP would no doubt have won all eight local seats, so those SP voters would even elect one of the regional MLAs.

Voters in the 13 Regina-region districts (including Indian Head - Milestone) would have elected six NDP MLAs, not just five. Perhaps Bhajan Brar? And they would have elected Green Party leader Naomi Hunter.

For the 10 MLAs from Yorkton-Melfort-Humboldt, instead of the SP winning them all, we'd see two New Democrats. That would be the two regional NDP candidates who got the most votes across the region (maybe Thera Nordal from Southey, east of Last Mountain Lake, and Stacey Strykowski from Preeceville near Yorkton). The 10 MLAs in that region would be six local, four regional, so those SP voters would even elect two of the regional MLAs. 

The 15 ridings of the Saskatoon-region (including Martensville-Warman) were less skewed. We’d still see six NDP, and along with eight SP we'd see a Green Party MLA: perhaps Delanie Passer? 

For the 11 MLAS from Prince Albert, Lloydminster & North, the NDP would have elected two more: maybe incumbent Prince Albert MLA Nicole Rancourt, and Amber Stewart from The Battlefords.

Of course, this projection simplistically assumes voters would have cast the same ballots they did in 2020. The reality would be different. When every vote counts, we typically see around 8% higher turnout. And one recent study suggested 18% of voters might vote differently. No more strategic voting. We would likely have had different candidates -- more women, and more diversity of all kinds. Who knows who might have won real democratic elections?

Different candidates: when the SP members from Moose Jaw-Swift Current-Weyburn-Kindersley met in a regional nominating convention, they would have not only voted to put the eight local nominees on the regional ballot, but also would have added several regional candidates. With only one woman from the eight local ridings, when they nominated several additional regional candidates, they would have naturally wanted to nominate a diverse group: more women. In 2020 Saskatchewan elected 17 women and 44 men. But 90% of Canadian voters say that, if parties would nominate more women, they'd vote for them.

Note: this is only a simulation

In any election, as Prof. Dennis Pilon says: "Now keep in mind that, when you change the voting system, you also change the incentives that affect the kinds of decisions that voters might make. For instance, we know that, when every vote counts, voters won't have to worry about splitting the vote, or casting a strategic vote. Thus, we should expect that support for different parties might change."

In these local simulations, for the names of regional MPPs I use the local candidates who got the highest percent in the region without winning the local seat. They would be the most likely winners under open-list MMP,

The open-list Mixed-Member Proportional system: 

Every MLA represents actual voters and real communities. 

We’re not talking about a model with candidates appointed by central parties. We’re talking about the mixed member system designed by the Law Commission of Canada, where every MLA represents actual voters and real communities. The majority of MLAs will be elected by local ridings as we do today, preserving the traditional link between voter and MLA. The other 36% are elected as regional MLAs, topping-up the numbers of MLAs from your local region so the total is proportional to the votes for each party. 

You have two votes. One is for your local MLA. The second helps elect regional MLAs for the top-up seats. All MLAs have faced the voters. No one is guaranteed a seat. The region is small enough that the regional MLAs are accountable. 

Competing MPPs:

You have a local MPP who will champion your community, and at least four competing regional MPPs, normally including one whose views best reflect your values, someone you helped elect in your local district or local region. 

How would regional MLAs serve residents?

See how it works in Scotland. 

The ballot would look like this ballot that PEI voters chose in their 2016 plebiscite, unlike the closed-list MMP model Ontario voters did not support in 2007. The open-regional-list mixed-member model is used in the German province of Bavaria, and was recommended by Canada's Law Commission and by Scotland's Arbuthnott Commission.

However, when Quebec’s Chief Electoral Officer reported In December 2007 on a compensatory mixed system, he reviewed several options for the design of a mixed proportional model for Quebec. He leaned towards an open list system with a party option: giving voters the choice of using their second ballot to vote for a party or one of its regional candidates. This would help parties that choose to present a “zippered” list, alternative women and men. 

The Jenkins Commission in the UK had a colourful explanation accurately predicting 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.”

Technical Notes:

1.    The calculation for any PR system has to choose a rounding method, to round fractions up and down. I have used the “largest remainder” calculation, which Germany used until recently, because it is the simplest and most transparent. In a 10-MPP region, if Party A deserves 3.4 MPPs, Party B deserves 3.1, Party C deserves 2.3, and Party D deserves 1.2, which party gets the tenth seat? Party A has a remainder of 0.4, the largest remainder. In a region where one party wins a bonus (“overhang”), I allocate the remaining seats among the remaining parties by the same calculation.

2. The purpose of the compensatory regional seats is to correct disproportional local results, not to provide a parallel system of getting elected. The Law Commission of Canada recommended that the right to nominate candidates for regional top-up seats should be limited to those parties which have candidates standing for election in at least one-third of the ridings within the top-up region. The UK’s Jenkins Commission recommended 50%. This prevents a possible distortion of the system by parties pretending to split into twin decoy parties for the regional seats, the trick which Berlusconi invented to sabotage Italy’s voting system.

 

In New Brunswick's 2020 election, voters lost

New Brunswick voters lost in its 2020 election. With only 39.3% of the vote, Blaine Higgs’ PCs won 27 of the 49 seats, an artificial majority. 

The Liberals with 34.4% of the votes won only 17 seats. The potential Conservative ally, the People’s Alliance of New Brunswick, won two seats and then joined the government. The Greens held their three seats. 

Fair Province-wide result: 17 Liberals, 20 PCs, 8 Greens, 4 People’s Alliance

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 17 MLAs against only 20 PCs. Voters for the Greens deserved eight MLAs. This would have allowed the Liberals and Greens to form a government together. The People’s Alliance would have won four seats, just short of being able to form a majority with the PCs.

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 in 2004 a proportional voting system 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. The party’s leading candidates in each region would have been elected to regional top-up seats to match the popular vote in that region.

In the 12 ridings of the South West region, heavily English-speaking, the PCs won all 12. But the Liberals’ 16.1% of the vote would have elected two regional MLAs from Saint John, likely Sharon Teare and Tim Jones or Phil Comeau. The Greens 11.8% would also have given them two regional MLAs, likely Brent Harris and Kim Reeder. The People’s Alliance with 11.1% would have elected a regional MLA such as Rod Cumberland.

In the 13 ridings of the Central region (Fredericton to Miramichi), the PCs won 9 of them. The Liberals elected only incumbent Lisa Harris, but they won 20.2% of the vote in that region, so they would also have elected two regional MLAs, such as Andrew Harvey (incumbent MLA in Carleton-Victoria), leader Kevin Vickers, or incumbent Fredericton MLA Stephen Horsman. With 16.5% of the vote, Green leader David Coons would have had company, a regional MLA like Luke Randall or Melissa Fraser.

In the 11 ridings of Northern New Brunswick, heavily francophone, the Liberals won all eleven. However, those voters cast 20% of their votes for the PCs, and 12.8% for the Greens. They would have elected regional MLAs like PCs Anne Bard-Lavigne and Marie-Eve Castonguay, and Greens Marie Larivière and Charles Thériault.

In the South East’s 13 ridings, every vote would have counted, even for the People’s Alliance who would have had a regional MLA like Sharon Buchanan.  

This simulation does not use 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 in November 2016, with a workable ballot as you can see here. It’s also the model on which the federal Electoral Reform Committee found consensus: a local and personalized proportional representation model.

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. New Brunswick would have had 29 local MLAs and 20 regional MLAs. Local ridings are bigger than today, but in return you have competing MLAs: a local MLA, and about five regional MLAs from your local region. 

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.

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 a few years ago “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.

Technical notes: 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 the above four regions have 11, 12 or 13 MLAs. Also, the Commission's model used closed lists. Also, the Commission's model used a 5% threshold, while for this simulation I used 4%. Also, the Commission's model used the highest-average (D'Hondt) calculation, rather than the normal highest-remainder.

 

Are Canadian voters comfortable with First Past The Post?

The Globe and Mail editorialized on Oct. 10, 2022, that “Multiple provincial referendums have been held on ditching FPTP for some sort of proportional representation – Prince Edward Island in 2005, 2016 and 2019; Ontario in 2007; British Columbia in 2005, 2009 and 2018. In none of them did enough voters endorse the new over the old. Canadians are apparently comfortable with a system that, however imperfect, has produced 150 years of stable government, and are suspicious of changing it.” (PEI did vote for MMP in 2016, by the way.)

Comfortable? False.

Canadian voters are far from comfortable with FPTP. Polls showed in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2010, 2012 and 2013 that around 70 percent of Canadians supported PR.

More recently: Strategic Directions poll 2017 May 23 to 25: When asked explicitly if they would prefer that Canada adopt a Proportional Representation (PR) system, national support was once again strongly supportive (71%).

Angus Reid Global poll Sept. 12 & 13, 2019: “Do you support or oppose moving towards a system of proportional representation in Canadian elections?” Net support: 77%. Net oppose: 23%

Angus Reid Global poll October 29 – November 4, 2019: please indicate which of these two broad options you prefer for Canada: A new system of ProportionalRepresentation: 68%. The current First Past the Post system: 32%

Leger poll September 4 to September 6, 2020: Do you support or oppose moving to proportional representation in Canada? 76% support, 24% oppose.

And for Ontario, Leger poll November 12-14, 2021. Do you support or oppose moving to proportional representation in Ontario? Support 78%, oppose 22%

Why do some referenda fail? Fear of the unknown, sometimes. For example, the BC 2018 referendum asked voters to vote yes on the first question when the result of the second question was one of three systems, a "mystery box," which might be an unknown system.

If every vote counted, what risks would change?

If the Liberals had kept their 2015 promise to make every vote count, and Canada had Proportional Representation for the 2025 election, there would be no risk of Pierre Poilievre or anyone else winning an accidental majority with only 35 or 40 per cent of the votes.

Sadly, not going to happen for 2025. Justin Trudeau is no longer listening to Liberals who wanted PR in 2015, although at least 28 of them are still in his caucus.

For an election after redistribution, the risk goes up slightly. There will be 343 ridings, five more than today. But most of the ridings will be reconfigured, to reflect shifts in populations. The biggest winner is Alberta, with three new MPs. And the biggest winners, on the current proposals of the 10 Boundaries Commissions, on the votes cast in 2021, will be the Conservatives with five more MPs, and the NDP also with five more MPs. The Bloc will gain two, while the Liberals will lose seven. But the Conservatives will still be 48 seats away from a majority, only three fewer than in 2021.

https://www.ipolitics.ca/news/analysis-tories-bloc-ndp-gain-and-liberals-lose-under-redistribution

Toronto is complaining

The redistribution will cost Toronto a seat, since it is not growing as fast as the rest of Ontario. But at the Boundaries Commission hearings for Toronto Sept. 29, the outrage was almost universal: how can Toronto accept losing a seat? Of course, in 2021 Toronto voted 52% Liberal and elected 100% Liberal MPs, so many Toronto voters have more than one reason to be outraged.

A “Dose of Proportionality.”

But what would happen if the Liberals listened to what Justin’s father said in 1980? How about a “dose of proportionality?” A temporary step towards proportional representation. Like the recommendation of the Pépin-Roberts Commission in 1979 (the “Task Force on Canadian Unity”) which proposed electing an additional 60 MPs to top-up the results from each province, keeping the present ridings. Pierre Trudeau endorsed that in 1980, but couldn’t get it past his nervous backbenchers.

A modest 42 additional MPs 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."

These extra 42 MPs would give all parties MPs from almost every region, if that party got over 5% in the province. Not full proportional representation, but “PR-lite,” a “dose” of PR. This will make every vote count to some extent, and will also make accidental majority governments far less likely. 

More diversity

Both larger parties will have more incentive to pivot to more diverse vote bases.

The 12 new Conservative MPs would be five in Quebec, two in Atlantic Canada, two in Toronto, one in Peel—Halton, one in Vancouver, and one on Vancouver Island, more geographically diverse. The six new Liberal MPs would be two in Alberta, one in the BC Interior, one in Southwestern Ontario, one in Northern and Central Ontario, and one in Eastern Quebec, again more geographically diverse. 

Less risk of accidental majorities

Is 42 extra MPs really enough to make a difference? On the votes cast in 2021 on the new Boundaries, it looks like the 42 extra MPs would be 16 for the NDP, 12 for Conservatives where their voters are badly unrepresented, six Liberals, seven PPC, and one Green. That’s only seven PPC in the six provinces where they got more than 5% of the votes (Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick). Not the 14 MPs they would have gotten in those six provinces under full PR.

With the additional 42 MPs, the Conservatives would be 9 seats further away from an accidental majority, 57 seats away, and the Liberals would be 14 seats further away from an accidental majority, 34 seats away. And Canada would be 24 MPs further away from being locked into a two-party system. 

Happier Toronto

Toronto voters would elect three more MPs, the best runners-up from parties underrepresented in Toronto. On the votes cast in 2021, that’s the NDP’s Alejandra Bravo, and two Conservatives like Joel Yakov Etienne and Indira Bains.   

Technical note: I am using 21 regions, each with an average of 16 local MPs and 2 regional MPs for top-up seats awarded to the party most unrepresented in the region. 

What would Ontario's 2022 election look like if we used proportional representation?

The people of Ontario just reminded all of us very powerfully of why we need PR! So did the Toronto Star editorial supporting it, a first.

If every vote in Ontario had counted in 2022, what would that look like?

No one man would have a one-party government elected by only 40.8% of the votes.

On the votes cast in 2022, with proportional representation our Ontario legislature should have 53 PC MPPs, 31 New Democrats, 31 Liberals, and 8 Greens.

Rural and urban voters in every region of Ontario would have effective votes and fair representation in both government and opposition. That’s a basic principle of proportional representation.

For example, let’s see what would happen using the mixed-member proportional system (used in Germany, New Zealand and Scotland). Using eight regions, the regions would have an average of 15 MPPs each (nine local MPPs, six regional MPPs elected to top-up seats).

Did your vote count?

In 2022, 54% of Ontario votes were not effective to help elect an MPP, as the First-Past-The-Post system threw them in the trash.

And who can say what a real democratic voting system would have given Ontario? This year’s 43.03% turnout was the lowest since Confederation. But in New Zealand, where every vote counts, in 2020 they saw an 82% turnout elect a new government with two-party support. 

The open-list or no-list Mixed-Member Proportional systems: Every MPP represents actual voters and real communities

We’re not talking about a model with candidates appointed by central parties. We’re talking about the mixed member system designed by the Law Commission of Canada and endorsed by the Ontario NDP Convention in 2014, where every MPP represents actual voters and real communities. The majority of MPPs will be elected by local ridings as we do today, preserving the traditional link between voter and MPP. The other 39% are elected as regional MPPs, topping-up the numbers of MPPs from your local region so the total is proportional to the votes for each party.

You have two votes. One is for your local MPP. The second helps elect regional MPPs for the top-up seats. All MPPs have faced the voters. No one is guaranteed a seat. The region is small enough that the regional MPPs are accountable.

Open-list

With open-list, the ballot would look like this ballot that PEI voters chose in their 2016 plebiscite. Unlike the closed-list MMP model Ontario voters did not support in 2007, you can cast a personal vote for a candidate within the regional list. This is commonly called “open list.”

No-list

With no-list, instead of voting for a candidate on a regional list, your second vote helps elect as regional MPPs those local candidates who got the most local support without winning the local seat. Call them “best runners-up.”   

How would regional MPPs serve residents?

See how it works in Scotland.

Ontario’s Rural-Urban Divide

Our winner-take-all voting system exaggerates Ontario’s regional differences, especially the rural-urban divide.

Ontario’s suburban, small-town and rural voters somehow combined to make Doug Ford an all-powerful premier. But his majority in this year’s Ontario election came from our winner-take all voting system, not from voters. It came from the 30-MPP bonus for the PCs that our skewed system foisted on those voters by throwing 54% of their ballots in the trash.

Liberal voters would be fairly represented, with 31 MPPs holding the balance of power, as would Green voters with eight MPPs. See details below.

Competing MPPs:

You have a local MPP who will champion your community, and about five competing regional MPPs, normally including one whose views best reflect your values, someone you helped elect in your local district or local region.

Note: this is only a simulation

In any election, as Prof. Dennis Pilon says: "Now keep in mind that, when you change the voting system, you also change the incentives that affect the kinds of decisions that voters might make. For instance, we know that, when every vote counts, voters won't have to worry about splitting the vote, or casting a strategic vote. Thus, we should expect that support for different parties might change."

In these local simulations, for the names of regional MPPs I use the local candidates who got the highest percent in the region without winning the local seat. They would be the most likely winners under open-list MMP, and would certainly be the winners under no-list MMP. 

Toronto and York 

PC voters cast only 38.2% of the votes in Toronto and York Region, yet elected 22 of the 35 MPPs. With MMP, instead of electing only four Liberal members, these voters would have also elected seven Liberal regional MPPs (maybe Steven Del Duca, Soo Wong, Arlena Hebert, Lee Fairclough, Jonathan Tsao, Paul Saguil and Sandra Tam), and two Green regional MPPs (such as Dianne Saxe and Abhijeet Manay), along with 14 PCs and eight New Democrats. 

Peel

Voters electing 12 MPPs from Peel Region would, instead of electing only PCs, have elected three or four Regional Liberal MPPs (maybe Dipika Damerla, Imran Mian and Elizabeth Mendes), and two New Democrats (maybe incumbent MPPs Gurratan Singh and Sara Singh), along with about seven Progressive Conservatives. 

East Central Ontario (Kingston—Durham Region)

Voters electing 13 MPPs from Mid-East Ontario would, instead of electing only one New Democrat, one Liberal and 11 PCs, have elected two Liberal regional MPPs (such as Amber Bowen from Ajax and Peterborough’s Greg Dempsey), along with two New Democrats (maybe Kingston’s Mary Rita Holland and Whitby’s Sara Labelle or Peterborough’s Jen Deck),  one Green (Haliburton’s Tom Regina or Frontenac’s Dr. Marlene Spruyt) and seven local PC MPPs. 

Eastern Ontario (Ottawa—Cornwall)

Voters electing 11 MPPs from Eastern Ontario would, instead of electing only two New Democrats, have elected a regional NDP MPP (maybe Ottawa’s Melissa Coenraad or Lyra Evans) and a Green such as Christian Proulx, along with three Liberals and four PCs. 

Central West (Waterloo—Bruce—Simcoe)

Voters electing 14 MPPs from Central West Ontario would, instead of electing only two New Democrats and a Green but no Liberals, have elected another New Democrat MPP such as Elmira’s Karen Meissner or Barrie’s Pekka Reinio, and three Liberals such as Jeff Lehman, Ted Crysler, and Selwyn Hicks or Surekha Shenoy, along with Green leader Mike Schreiner and a second Green MPP (Matt Richter), and six local PC MPPs. 

Central South (Hamilton—Halton—Niagara—Brantford

Voters electing 15 MPPs from Central South Ontario would, instead of electing no Liberal or Green MPP, have elected three regional Liberal MPPs (such as Oakville’s Alison Gohel, Milton’s Sameera Ali and Kaniz Mouli) and a Green regional MPP like Sandy Crawley, along with four New Democrat MPPs, six PCs, and independent Bobbi Ann Brady. 

Southwest (London—Windsor)

Voters electing 12 MPPs from Southwest Ontario would, instead of electing no Liberal MPP, have elected two regional Liberal MPPs (maybe London’s Kate Graham and former St. Thomas Mayor Heather Jackson or Windsor councillor Gary Kaschak), along with four New Democrats and six PCs. 

Northern Ontario

Voters electing 12 MPPs from Northern Ontario would, instead of electing only no Liberal MPP, have elected two regional Liberal MPPs such as Shelby Ch’ng (or Rob Barrett) and David Farrow, along with five New Democrat MPPs and five PCs.

What sort of government would Ontario have had?

Cooperation between parties representing a majority can get a lot of good things done. This is the norm in most western democracies.

The Ontario government might have been:

1. A minority PC government with a supply-and-confidence agreement (like the Accord in Ontario in 1985) with the Liberals, ensuring a stable government for four years (giving the Liberals time to rebuild). Possible but unlikely, the Liberals had promised not to do this.

2. A minority NDP government with a supply-and-confidence agreement (like the Accord in Ontario in 1985) with the Liberals, ensuring a stable government for four years (giving the Liberals time to rebuild). More likely than option 1.

3. A coalition government between the NDP and the Liberals. Less likely in today’s climate, more likely under PR when the public is more used to cooperation between parties representing a majority.

4. A coalition government between the PCs and the Liberals. Possible but even less likely.

5. A minority government with no agreement or Accord, relying on support from one or more other parties issue by issue. Possible but less stable (although Bill Davis made it work for four years from 1977 to 1981). Today, it would be very unstable because the minority government would be looking for an excuse to roll the dice and try for an accidental majority. Under PR, when an accidental false majority would not be possible, everyone might want to make it work (as happened in Scotland for four years from 2007 to 2011).

How big will the Legislature be? Yes, that's only 75 local MPPs. So the local ridings are larger, unless we have a larger Legislature. That's the only downside of the mixed-member proportional system. The 2007 Ontario Citizens Assembly decided to add 22 MPPs. Local ridings would still have to be larger, but a bit less so. Politicians hate to suggest adding more politicians. A Citizens Assembly will find it easier. 

Technical Notes:

1.    Because of rounding errors when Ontario is divided into eight regions, the simulation above happens to give the PCs a bonus of one seat and the NDP a bonus of one, one from the Liberals, one from the Greens. The overall results are still very close to proportionality.

2. This simulation assumes there is a threshold of 3%, 4% or 5% for a party to elect a regional MPP for a top-up seat. The New Blue Party got only 2.7%. (However, if we impose no threshold, the New Blues got enough votes in Central West that they could have elected a MPP, either leader Jim Karahalios or his wife Belinda.)

3.    The calculation for any PR system has to choose a rounding method, to round fractions up and down. I have used the “largest remainder” calculation, which Germany used until recently, because it is the simplest and most transparent. In a 10-MPP region, if Party A deserves 3.4 MPPs, Party B deserves 3.1, Party C deserves 2.3, and Party D deserves 1.2, which party gets the tenth seat? Party A has a remainder of 0.4, the largest remainder. In a region where one party wins a bonus (“overhang”), I allocate the remaining seats among the remaining parties by the same calculation.

4. The purpose of the compensatory regional seats is to correct disproportional local results, not to provide a parallel system of getting elected. The Law Commission of Canada recommended that the right to nominate candidates for regional top-up seats should be limited to those parties which have candidates standing for election in at least one-third of the ridings within the top-up region. The UK’s Jenkins Commission recommended 50%. This prevents a possible distortion of the system by parties pretending to split into twin decoy parties for the regional seats, the trick which Berlusconi invented to sabotage Italy’s voting system.

Ontario NDP Policy (Convention)

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Ontario NDP reaffirms its endorsement of a system of proportional representation for Ontario.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the proposed system of voting incorporate the following characteristics:

a) preservation of the traditional link between voter and MPP by keeping constituency seats;

b) two votes: one for a local constituency candidate and one for a Party's list of candidates;

c) Party lists to be developed and applied at a regional rather than provincial level;

d) restoration and enhancement of democracy through the provision of additional seats in the Legislature;

e) additional seats to be filled from Party Lists so as to offset disproportionality between the constituency elections and the popular Party vote.

f) voters to have the option of either endorsing the party’s regional list, or casting a personal vote for a candidate within the regional list. 

Updated: An Ontario NDP government will convene a Citizen's Assembly (an independent group of citizens) that will be mandated to develop a made-in-Ontario model of MMP. The group will be supported in its work by a panel of experts and representatives of Ontario's major parties. The CA will also be mandated to make recommendations to the government on timelines, implementation and ratification for the change to an MMP voting system.

(This Post updated Nov. 10, 2022.)