What would the results of the 2015 election have been, with proportional representation?

What would the results of the 2015 election have been, with proportional representation?

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."

But on the votes as cast, the final count in my regional simulation is Liberals 143, Conservatives 105, New Democrats 69, Bloc 15, and Greens six; details below.

The open-list MMP system: Every MP 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 MP represents actual voters and real communities. The majority of MPs will be elected by local ridings as we do today, preserving the traditional link between voter and MP. The other 39% are elected as regional MPs, topping-up the numbers of MPs from your local region so the total is proportional to the votes for each party.

You have two votes. One is for your local MP. The second helps elect regional MPs, topping-up the numbers of MPs from your local region so the total is proportional to the votes for each party. You cast a personal vote for a candidate within the regional list. This is commonly called “open list.” All MPs have faced the voters. No one is guaranteed a seat. The region is small enough that the regional MPs are accountable.

Negative voting mania

This election featured a mania of bandwagon voting never before seen in Canada, eclipsing even 1968’s Trudeaumania.

A serious attempt at organized negative voting or tactical voting (which Canadians insist on calling “strategic voting”) was made by LeadNow, based only on local polling in 80 ridings over the month before the election. It had little effect. The whole country swung behind the Liberals in the last few days of the campaign, in a collective impulse to end the Harper government. Recommendations by LeadNow to vote for 31 NDP candidates were successful in 13 cases, but failed in 18 others.

Never again

The polling swings of the last six months have clearly shown that Canadian voters want more than two choices, if they can vote for what they want. This leaves a vast number of voters, frustrated at having to vote against something on October 19, saying “never again -- next time I want to vote for my first choice.” 

Polls taken the day before the election correctly predicted the outcome, but until that Sunday, polls had shown a Liberal minority government. Some newly elected Liberal MPs had been encouraging NDP supporters to help elect a minority Liberal government. They were apologetic: “I was expecting a minority government.” Many people echoed a Globe and Mail columnist who wrote “What have we done?” A voter’s anguished letter to Justin Trudeau went viral: “I did not vote for you. I voted against the alternative. . . . Change the electoral system.”

So the first effect of using proportional representation would have been to end strategic voting.

The Liberal platform promised to “Make Every Vote Count:” to study electoral reform, including both options: proportional representation, and ranked ballots in single-member districts, and implement one of them in time for the next election.

Fair Vote Canada welcomed Justin Trudeau’s promise to make every vote count. “Never again should we face a one-party, one-man government elected by a minority of voters. We urge you to work with all Parties and enact voting rules for a true and modern representative democracy in time for the next election. . . We are calling on you to design a voting system for Canada in which every ballot delivers equal representation.”

Preferential ballots will not do

Preferential ballots, of course, are intended to help centrist parties, who hope to be everyone else’s second choice. But in Atlantic Canada, where the Liberals swept all 32 seats, the preferential ballot would be a cure without a disease.

Stephane Dion’s 2013 line was “Preferential voting . . . does nothing to correct the distortion between votes and seats and the under-representation of national parties compared to regional ones.” This has never been more obvious. Surely very few in the Liberal Party will expect such a partisan quick fix to be acceptable. Only proportional representation will make every vote count.

What would the 2015 votes have produced under proportional representation?

It is tempting to describe what result proportional representation would have produced on the opinion polls taken before the niqab killed the NDP campaign in Quebec and started what became a consensus, and then a mania.

But that is wishful thinking. Let’s look instead at what the votes cast on Oct. 19 would have produced, under a proportional voting system. If nothing else, it will demonstrate how PR in Canada would work.

Of course, I’m not talking about classic “list-PR” with candidates appointed by central parties, which no one proposes for Canada. I am looking at the model designed by the Law Commission of Canada. 


Mixed ProportionalWith the Mixed Proportional system, you have two votes. With one, you help elect a local MP as we do today. The majority of MPs would still be local MPs. 

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, topping-up the local results to make them match the vote shares. 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 was supported by the NDP MPs, half the Liberal caucus, and the smaller parties, in the House of Commons on Dec. 3, 2014. It was even supported by former Conservative independent Brant Rathgeber, to the surprise of some. He understood that, 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.

Regional open list MMP

The Law Commission’s 2004 report, Voting Counts, recommended “Within the context of a mixed member proportional system, Parliament should adopt a flexible list system that provides voters with the option of either endorsing the party “slate” or “ticket,” or of indicating a preference for a candidate within the (regional) list.”

Similarly, Fair Vote Canada’s 2015 campaign supported only models which respected the need for all MPs to face the voters. And Leading Liberal MP Dominic Leblanc told Fair Vote Canada “I support reforms to add elements of proportional representation that also ensure that Members of Parliament remain directly accountable to their constituents first and foremost.”

This requires regions small enough to make regional MPs accountable. Regions larger than 18 MPs would require a “bed-sheet ballot” to list the regional candidates of all parties. The Law Commission Report was explicitly inspired by the models of Scotland, which has 16-MSP regions, and Wales, which has 12-MHA regions.
 

Such regions have an effective threshold of at least 5% in each region. The 2015 Green vote dropped to only 3.5% across Canada, while in 2008 it was 6.8%. So no regional PR model will give most 2015 Green voters full representation. A 5% threshold would have cut them down to four MPs from their BC base, where BC Green voters cast 8.24% of the ballots.

If the Greens doubled their vote with PR as they would surely have done, they would have elected about 23 MPs across Canada, getting official party status and overtaking the Bloc.

Province-by-province

Any PR model for Canada will start by looking at votes province-by-province, since the Constitution Act gives each province specified numbers of MPs. Perfect province-wide proportionality would have resulted in 137 Liberal MPs, 109 Conservatives, 67 New Democrats, 10 Greens, and 15 Bloc Quebecois MPs. That’s assuming a threshold of no higher than the 2% used by Jean Chretien for his great campaign finance legacy, the per-vote subsidy.

Here’s the list:

Lib, Con, NDP, Green, Bloc

B.C.                15, 13, 11, 3
Alberta           8, 21, 4, 1      
Sask.              3, 7, 4
Manitoba       6, 5, 2, 1
Ontario           55, 43, 20, 3
Quebec          28, 13, 20, 2, 15
N.B.                5, 3, 2
P.E.I.               2, 1, 1
N.S.                7, 2, 2
Nfld & Lab.    5, 1, 1
Territories      3, 0, 0
Total               137, 109, 67, 10, 15

The West wants in to the Liberal caucus

One thing can be said with certainty: the 2015 results under winner-take-all still left Liberal voters in the West under-represented.

This new government looks like a government of the GTA and Atlantic Canada. Out of all Liberal voters across Canada, the 20% in the GTA elected 26% of the Liberal caucus, while the 11% in Atlantic Canada elected 17% of the Liberal caucus. Western Liberals cast 25% of the Liberal votes but elected only 16% of the caucus.

Liberal women are especially under-represented in the West. Since Justin Trudeau will make his first cabinet half women, gender parity has arrived in the federal Liberal Party. Polls show 90% of Canadians want to see more women elected. With good women among the regional candidates, voters will vote for them.

Geographic diversity

Some people think proportional representation would mean big-city rule. Not so, as I will show.

In the nine ridings of the BC Interior and North, Liberal voters cast 30% of the votes, but elected only Stephen Fuhr, while the Conservatives elected five MPs. A proportional system would have let voters in that region elect three Liberal MPs, three Conservative MPs, and three New Democrats. Liberal voters might have elected Karley Scott from West Kelowna and Tracy Calogheros from Prince George.

In the seven ridings of Vancouver Island, Liberal voters cast 21% of the votes, but elected no one, while NDP voters cast 33% of the ballots yet elected six of the seven MPs. A proportional system would have let Liberal voters on Vancouver Island elect one or two MPs such as David Merner from Victoria and Carrie Powell-Davidson from the City of Parksville.

In Alberta, the 25% of the voters who voted Liberal deserved to elect eight of its 34 MPs, yet elected only four, all men. A proportional system would have let voters in Alberta elect eight Liberal MPs, 21 Conservative MPs, four NDP MPs, and one Green. If they had elected four regional MPs, they might have been Kerry Cundal and Nirmala Naidoo from Calgary, Chandra Kastern from Red Deer, and Karen Leibovici from Edmonton.

In Saskatchewan, the 24% of voters who voted Liberal deserved to elect three of its 14 MPs, yet elected only Ralph Goodale. A proportional system would have let voters in Saskatchewan elect three Liberal MPs, seven Conservative MPs, and four NDP MPs. Liberal voters might have elected Tracy Muggli from Saskatoon and aboriginal leader Lawrence Joseph from Prince Albert.

The preferential ballot would not have helped western Liberals. Only two ridings in Saskatchewan elected Conservative MPs by less than 50% of the vote, and the NDP was second in both. In Alberta I see only one riding where it might have helped Liberals.  In central Canada, if it did anything it would only have padded the Liberal majority.

Even some Ontario regions show the same lack of Liberal MPs. 

In the 15 ridings of West Central Ontario, Liberal voters cast 42% of the ballots, while Conservative voters cast only 41%. Yet the region’s 15 MPs are ten Conservatives and only five Liberals, all but one men. A proportional system would have let voters in that region elect six Liberal MPs, six Conservative MPs, two New Democrats and one Green. Liberal voters might have elected Orillia’s Liz Riley, Muskoka’s Trisha Cowie, or Owen Sound’s Kimberley Love.

In the 11 ridings of southwestern Ontario, NDP voters elected four MPs with 27% of the vote, yet the 33% who voted Liberal elected only two MPs, one female. A proportional system would have let voters in that region elect four Liberal MPs, four Conservative MPs, and three NDP MPs. Liberal voters might have elected Chatham’s Katie Omstead and Lori Baldwin-Sands from St. Thomas.

NDP old and new stars

NDP voters would have elected some of their stars who everyone says will be missed: Megan Leslie, Peter Stoffer, Jack Harris, Françoise Boivin, Nycole Turmel, Paul Dewar, Craig Scott, Peggy Nash, and Jinny Sims.

But the NDP did elect 16 new members of their 44-MP caucus: seven from BC, three from Ontario, three from Saskatchewan, two from Quebec, and one from Manitoba.

PR would have added breadth to the NDP by adding 13 more new people such as young Calgary lawyer Laura Weston, Cheryl Meheden from Lethbridge, Edmonton’s Janis Irwin, Saskatoon’s Claire Card, Harbaljit Singh Kahlon from Brampton, Dianne Douglas from Mississauga, Oshawa’s Mary Fowler, Peterborough’s Dave Nickle, Kitchener’s Susan Cadell, Stratford’s Ethan Rabidoux, Jason Godin and AJ Griffin from New Brunswick, and Joe Byrne from PEI.

Winner's bonus

In any winner-take-all election, the largest party usually gets a “winner’s bonus.” In Quebec, the Liberal “winner’s bonus” was 12 seats, at the cost of the Bloc (five seats), NDP (four), Greens (two), and Conservatives (one). They not only swept the federalist ridings of Montreal and western Quebec, they even won nine of the 14 seats in south-shore Montérégie, leaving four for the NDP and one for the Bloc.

Overhangs

With a regonal MMP model, we risk local sweeps being so extreme that they create “overhangs.” Those are results too disproportional for the compensatory (“top-up”) MPs to correct, when they are only 37% of the total. That’s the trade-off in the system design, to keep local ridings from being almost double their present size.

This happened on Oct.19 with the never-before-seen Liberal sweep of New Brunswick, and with the sweep of Toronto. In a simulation of the 2015 votes cast with regions averaging only 12 MPs, this results in a bonus of three MPs for the Liberals. With a real MMP election where voters have more choice and do not need to cast negative votes, such sweeps will not normally happen.

Also, the small vote for the Greens leaves them with only six MPs, not the ten which perfect proportionality would give them. This adds another two to the Liberal bonus, and gives the NDP a bonus also. The final count in my regional simulation is Liberals 143, Conservatives 105, New Democrats 69, Bloc 15, and Greens six.

Also, when we make districts small enough to make regional MPs more accountable, we again risk local sweeps being too extreme. In 2015, that wasn’t the problem: a 25-MP Toronto region would have the identical overhang to the two smaller regions.

Conclusion

Again, the biggest result of using PR would be to end strategic voting, and to let every voter help elect an MP representing his or her first choice of views.

How would proportional representation work in Central East Ontario?

Note: for an alternative configuation, see How would proportional representation work in Eastern Ontario?

My introductory comments at an all-candidates meeting in Port Hope Sept.14, 2015.

This meeting has been called by our local Chapter of Fair Vote Canada, to discuss electoral reform and get the stand of local candidates.

Fair Vote Canada is a multi-partisan movement. As of this morning we have 60,500 supporters, from all walks of life and all points on the spectrum. Proportional representation is not a partisan issue. For example, Conservative Hugh Segal is still a very vocal supporter of proportional representation.

Proportional representation means every vote will count equally. When every vote counts, voters won’t have to worry about splitting the vote, or casting a strategic vote. More young voters will find it worthwhile voting.

For the past several elections, at least 50% of all ballots cast across Canada did not count toward electing a representative. In 2011, 39.6% of votes somehow elected a government with a false majority, with 100% of power concentrated in the Prime Minister and his Office.

Opinion polls have shown at least 70% of Canadians support proportional representation.

We will start by seeing Prof. Dennis Pilon's six-minute video on the Law Commission of Canada's recommended mixed-member model of proportional representation.

(This video uses the example of a 16-MP region from Ottawa to Belleville, which would now elect 10 local MPs and six regional MPs.)

Of course, proportional representation would mean a lot for Canada. We would not likely have a one-party one-man government. Parliament would reflect our diverse voters in each province.

But it would also help a county like Northumberland. We would have competing MPs. Fair Vote Canada says rural and urban voters in every region should have fair representation in both government and opposition.

Prof. Pilon’s video showed a region with 16 MPs. That’s a good teaching example. The Law Commission said their model was inspired by the models used in Scotland and Wales. Scotland has regions of 16 MPs. Wales has regions of 12 MPs.

Both the NDP and the Liberals propose 12 months of public consultations to come up with the best model for Canada. For example, regions with 12 MPs mean the regional MPs are a bit more locally accountable, more anchored to real communities.

Ontario has 121 MPs. If Ontario was organized in ten regions with an average of 12 MPs each, that would still be proportional enough that Green Party voters would, on the votes cast in 2011, have elected four MPs, just as they deserved. The size of the regions is a key design feature for public consultations.

East of the GTA we elect 19 MPs. That’s too big for a single region. Our county doesn’t want to elect a regional MP from Ottawa. Some regions will have fewer than 12 MPs, such as Northern Ontario with nine MPs. I can see the Ottawa Valley, including Cornwall, with 11 MPs, making a good region. That’s the bilingual district, 20% French mother tongue. That leaves eight MPs elected in our Kingston—Peterborough region, from Lindsay to Brockville.

Locally, in the last election, in our Peterborough—Kingston region which elects eight MPs this year, 219,615 Conservative voters elected six MPs, 87,388 Liberal voters elected one MP from Kingston, 89,947 NDP voters elected no one, and 18,151 Green voters elected no one. If every vote counted equally, with eight MPs those same ballots would elect four local Conservative MPs, one local Liberal MP, one regional Liberal MP, and two regional NDP MPs.

 

But as Prof. Pilon just told us, 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." 

 

And when every vote counts, turnout will be higher -- perhaps 7% higher. So, when voters have more choice, the results will be far more representative of our diverse population and their diverse views. Who can say what would be the result of real democratic elections?

One thing we know for sure: it is extremely unlikely that our region’s voters would vote exactly as they did in 2011. For example, if the Greens doubled their vote, an extra 16,000 new Green voters would have elected a Green MP.

Tomorrow FVC launches our “Where They Stand” website. More than 50 Liberal candidates have stated their support for proportional representation. Plus one lonely Conservative MP from British Columbia.

Many other Liberal candidates are still undecided.

A few Liberals oppose PR, and prefer instead another winner-take-all system: the preferential ballot in single-member ridings.

A study on the last UK election showed that the preferential ballot would have given the Conservatives an even bigger false majority than the one they got, even more skewed than first past the post. But a few Liberals, to be blunt, dream of being everyone’s second choice. They think a preferential ballot would give them a partisan advantage. Luckily, I believe the majority of Liberal activists realize that electoral reform cannot succeed as a partisan project.

As Stephane Dion keeps saying “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. . . . Preferential voting does nothing to correct the distortion between votes and seats and the under-representation of national parties compared to regional ones.”

For example, metropolitan Montreal elects 35 MPs, but not one Conservative. In 2011, its 208,931 Conservative voters elected no one. With proportional representation they would have elected four MPs. Canada’s second largest city would have been represented in cabinet. The four MPs would have been the four Conservative regional candidates who got the most support from regional Conservative voters.

Last Dec. 3^rd in the House of Commons the NDP moved a motion:

“That, in the opinion of the House: (a) the next federal election should be the last conducted under the current first-past-the-post electoral system which has repeatedly delivered a majority of seats to parties supported by a minority of voters, or under any other winner-take-all electoral system; and (b) a form of mixed-member proportional representation would be the best electoral system for Canada. “

Of 31 Liberal MPs present, 16 voted yes, 15 no. Six others voted for it: five MPs from the Greens, Bloc and the new Strength in Democracy party, plus even Brent Rathgeber, the independent former Conservative.

Some people assume PR would make MPs less independent. Toronto MP Craig Scott, NDP Democratic Reform Critic, loves to explain that it’s the opposite. 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 House of Commons. About 32% of voters split their ballots this way in New Zealand with a similar system.

 

This makes it easier, says Craig Scott, 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.   

 

The turnout in the 2011 election was a pitiful 61.1% across Canada (63.7% locally) compared with 75.3% in 1988, and the turnouts around 80% typical of countries with normal proportional systems:
Sweden 86%

Denmark 86%
Brazil 81%
Norway 78%
Argentina 77%
New Zealand 77%
Netherlands 75%
Austria 75%

The panel of three candidates will discuss:

(1) Do you feel the number of MPs elected to Parliament from each party should be roughly proportional to the number of votes cast for that party's candidates?

(2) Can a model of Proportional Representation for Canada respect the need for all MPs to face the voters and be accountable to voters?

(3) If an all-party/citizen process recommends adding an element of proportionality to Canada's electoral system, would you vote in favour of implementing these recommendations in time for the following federal election?

(All three candidates present, NDP Liberal and Green, said yes to all three.)

How would proportional representation work in Northern Ontario?

How would proportional representation work in Northern Ontario, for federal elections?

I’m not talking about classic “list-PR” with candidates appointed by central parties, which no one proposes for Canada.

I’m talking about the model recommended by the Law Commission of Canada, where every Member of Parliament represents actual voters and real communities. Local ridings  will elect the majority of MPs as we do today. The others are elected as regional MPs, topping-up the numbers of MPs from your region so the total is proportional to the votes for each party. You can cast a personal vote for the regional candidate you prefer.

These regional MPs are elected from regions small enough that the regional MPs are accountable; maybe about 12 MPs per region.

Canadians support proportional representation

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 in time for the next 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 Northern Ontario?

Mixed Proportional

With the Mixed Proportional system, you have two votes. With one, you help elect a local MP as we do today. The majority of MPs would still be local MPs.

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, topping-up the local results to make them match the vote shares. 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.

Consultations

After the October 19 election, Canada will very likely see a 12-month public consultation process by a special all-party task force or parliamentary committee with a mandate to consult experts and ordinary Canadians, and bring recommendations to Parliament, likely including the best design for a mixed-member proportional system.

Competing MPs
Every voter will be served by competing MPs. You could choose to go to your local MP for service or representation, or you could go to one of your regional MPs, likely including someone you helped elect.

Accountable 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 as they were in the Ontario and PEI referendums: 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.”

Every vote counts. Fair Vote Canada says "A democratic voting system must encourage citizens to exercise positive choice by voting for the candidate or party they prefer."
 

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

More people would vote, and vote differently

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."

And when every vote counts, turnout will be higher -- perhaps 7% higher. So, when voters have more choice, the results will be far more representative of our diverse population and their diverse views. Who can say what would be the result of real democratic elections?

One thing we know for sure: it is extremely unlikely that voters would vote exactly as they did in 2011. Meanwhile, I’ve done simulations on the votes cast in 2011.  

Northern Ontario’s nine MPs

In 2011 Northern Ontario voters (north of the French River) elected six NDP MPs and three Conservative MPs. Yet those voters cast only 44% of their votes for New Democrats, while 33% voted Conservative, 20% Liberal, and 3% Green. If every vote counted equally, on those votes NDP voters would elect four MPs, Conservative voters three MPs, and Liberal voters two. (For the calculation, see technical footnote below.)

Since I’m projecting from the 2011 votes, I’ll start with the 2011 candidates. Let’s suppose the six local MPs were (depending on local nominations in six larger ridings) New Democrats Charlie Angus, Claude Gravelle, Carol Hughes, and John Rafferty, and Conservatives Greg Rickford and Jay Aspin.

The regional MPs for each party would be the party’s regional candidates who ended up with the most support across the region. In this case, Liberal voters would elect two regional Liberal MPs. maybe Nipissing’s Anthony Rota (who got 15,477 votes in 2011) and Sault Ste. Marie’s Christian Provenzano (8,343) or Sudbury’s Carol Hartman (8,172) or Thunder Bay’s Ken Boshcoff (8,067).

Conservative voters would elect one regional MP. Many would have preferred Greg Rickford or Jay Aspin, but assuming they already won local seats, the regional seat would go to the next most popular. In other words, Conservative voters whose top preference was not Greg Rickford or Jay Aspin could, if they wish, elect the regional Conservative MP. Maybe they would have elected Sault Ste. Marie’s Bryan Hayes (who got 18,328 votes in 2011 and was actually elected that year by a slim margin) or their only female candidate, Sudbury’s Lynne Reynolds (she got 12,503 votes in 2011, but would get more from across the North.).

What would regional MPs do?

How would regional MPs operate? They would cover several ridings each. Just the way it’s done in Scotland. They could have several offices, just as MP Jay Aspin has offices in both North Bay and New Liskeard.  

Regional candidates

How would party members nominate and rank a group of regional candidates? It could be done on-line, and with live conventions. Likely party members in each region would decide to nominate the same candidates already 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 provincial candidates would surely have included some women. Since polls show 90% of Canadians want to see more women elected, we’ll elect women when given the chance.  

But voters will have the final say, since they can vote for their party’s regional candidate they prefer. Or they can vote for the list as ranked by the party’s nomination process.

How many local MPs?
In my 2011 simulation, I made each top-up region have at least 57.5% of its MPs as local MPs. On average across Canada, 62.7% of the MPs will be local MPs. The 335 MPs from the ten provinces will be 210 local MPs and 125 regional or provincial MPs. 

More choice

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 House of Commons. About 32% of voters split their ballots this way in New Zealand with a similar system.

Local MPs become more independent

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.

The rural voice

Will proportional representation swamp the rural voice? No, as shown here. 

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."

This is not a partisan scheme. Unrepresented Conservative voters would have elected eight more Quebec MPs than in 2011, one more in Newfoundland, one more in PEI, and one more on Vancouver Island.

Of course, proportional representation would mean a lot for Canada. We would not likely have a one-man one-party government whose PMO holds all the power. (The last Prime Minister to get more than 50% of the votes was Brian Mulroney in 1984.) Parliament would reflect the diverse voters of every province.

Power to the voters

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.

“When you empower people, it’s incredible what can be achieved”

As Tom Mulcair has written “In a study that looked at 36 countries with proportional representation, countries that reformed their systems saw increased voter turnout, more women and minorities elected and an overall higher satisfaction with democracy. Furthermore, countries with proportional representation also score higher on indicators of health, education and standards of living. They are more likely to enjoy fiscal surpluses and have healthier environmental policies, economic growth and decreased income inequality. 

“It may seem shocking that a change in electoral system can fuel such dramatic changes, but when you empower people, it’s incredible what can be achieved. By responding to and reflecting a broader pool of interests and people, proportional elections lead to governments that are not based on one single partisan worldview or a narrow segment of society. Proportional governments represent a broader cross-section of society; as a result, the policies they pass tend to be more credible, stable and based on the common good.”

Winner-take-all results across Canada

On the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results on the new 2015 boundaries for the 338 ridings would be 187 Conservative, 110 NDP, 36 Liberal, 4 Bloc, and 1 Green.

Simulated results across Canada

If every vote counted equally, using province-wide perfect proportionality for the 338 MPs (not counting Quebec Green votes which were below 3%), the results would have been: Conservative 140, NDP 104, Liberal 64, BQ 19, Green 11.

In my simulation, after adjustments due to 62.7% local seats, the results for 338 MPs are: Conservative 139, NDP 108, Liberal 64, BQ 17, Green 10. Close to perfect, while keeping all MPs accountable to real local and regional communities, and keeping 62.7% of the MPs as local MPs.

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.

Ten different Commissions, Assemblies and Reports in the past eleven years in Canada have unanimously recommended proportional representation.

Technical Footnotes:

1.  How does the math work? In my Northern Ontario example, on the votes cast in 2011, NDP voters were entitled to 3.96 MPs, Conservative voters to 2.97 MPs, Liberals 1.79, and Greens 0.28. After the first six MPs are calculated, the next “highest remainder” is the Conservatives’ 0.97, so they get the seventh MP, the NDP the eighth, and the Liberals the ninth. If 17,800 more new voters had voted for the Green Party, they would have taken the ninth seat from the Liberals, electing an MP such as North Bay’s Dr. Scott Daley.

2. 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 across Canada.

3.  With only 37.3% of the MPs as compensatory (“top-up”) MPs, there is no guarantee that the result will be perfectly proportional. In Quebec in 2011 the “Orange Wave” was so extreme that this model lets NDP voters elect 38 MPs rather than the 35 they deserve, at the cost of the Bloc (two MPs short) and the Conservatives (one). If one party swept all six local seats in Northern Ontario, the three regional MPs might not be enough for perfect proportionality. Adding regional MPs, while keeping the House the same size, means larger local ridings. It’s a trade-off: the higher the proportion of regional MPs, the larger are the local ridings. But the lower the proportion of regional MPs, the greater the risk that they are too few to compensate for the disproportional local results.

4.  Many design details must be decided, after public consultations. For example, smaller regions are intended to be “moderately” proportional, less likely to elect MPs from smaller parties like the Greens. But in return, they provide better geographic representation, and more accountable regional MPs.