Letter to the Editor

This article was written before the Prime Minister’s announcement, putting the election promise of electoral reform on the back burner. However, I am still submitting it because the issue of electoral reform is complicated and requires time, thought and patience to understand. This is a first step. I would recommend George Stephenson’s article in the January/February issue of the Manitoba Teacher , pages 20-21, to anyone wishing to have a good perspective on proportional representation. It is entitled Canada needs Trump protection.

Why electoral reform?

We are ,for the most part, a pretty comfortable lot, we Canadians. Why in God’s name would the Liberal leader suggest that the past election would be the last for the process known as “first past the post”? I assume that he thought it was an unfair process. So, why could it be considered “unfair”? I vote for a candidate in my constituency and if he/she wins I am happy; if they lose, I am unhappy , but life goes on. This works well when there are only two parties: one winner, one loser.

Or does it? What happens when several parties split the vote so that no political party gets 51% and a clear mandate to govern. Then, a party with much less than a majority support gets to make the laws for the rest of us. In other words, a party with 30% of the popular vote might get to govern although it was opposed by the other 70% that did not vote for it. There’s the rub! There’s the unfairness, and it has happened...

Perhaps it is the simplicity of understanding “winners and losers”, as Donald Trump sees the world, that makes “first past the post” so appealing, but it is also its greatest drawback. When so much power has gravitated to the Prime Minister’s Office in recent decades, and the House of Commons has becomes weaker as a consequence, there is an absence of the checks and balances that a democracy needs . Electoral reform might very well strengthen the Commons and moderate a government that has less than 50% of the popular vote.

So, what other process could be used? Some people have suggested that there should be more weight given to the overall voting strength expressed in the election. It seems on the surface to be a more complicated process but most of the countries in world have adopted it, and make it work. Perhaps, we should look a little closer at that other process and its possibilities.

Let’s assume that there are four political parties with different platforms appealing to the electorate for its support. Candidates would run in each constituency as they do now, and each party would gain support according to the election results. But, there would be no “first past the post winner. Instead, the vote would be tallied nationally and each party would get the number of seats that “it had earned on a national tally sheet. So, if a party had earned 40% of the vote it would get 40% of the seats, and so on. Each party would decide who among its candidates had deserved recognition, and decisions on government roles would be decided much as they now, by the political party leaders.

Let’s contrast what the differences might be. Now, every vote would be a factor in deciding the national outcome. Under the present system, all the votes for the candidates not winning the constituency are useless and have no bearing on the decisions that are made by government. There are opposition parties but they do not represent the actual strength of people who voted for them. Under the system being considered by the Electoral Reform committee there would be a more equitable distribution of seats, and hence, power, so that the governing party, whichever one it happens to be, would be much more aware of the concerns of all Canadians as expressed by the stronger opposition parties. Alliances and compromises are much more likely to happen based on the necessity of governing and being aware of the collective will of all citizens.

So, if change should come, let’s consider that there might be a fairer way to represent the will of the people than “first-past-the post”.

John Sushelnitsky

(The writer is a director on the RTAM Board, however, the above letter is his personal opinion, not of his committee, or of the RTAM Board)