Nate, thanks for your attention on this. As my MP, you should know that this makes me extremely upset. The last time I voted Liberal was in 2015 when electoral reform was one of the main promises of JT and the Liberal Party. After assuming office and quickly stomping on that idea, I lost interest. I have voted Green in the last two general elections.
For me, electoral reform (specifically a move away from FPTP) is the single most important issue facing this country, as it effects all other issues. We continue to lack the ability to have nuanced conversations on extremely important subjects like healthcare, housing and climate change in Ontario and at the Federal level, and I'm sure in other provinces as well. FPTP is simply not conducive to creating an environment where policy makers can create solutions with depth.
We need an environment where a variety of voices have power, not just the Liberals or Conservatives. Winner takes all means the winner creates half-assed solutions to the detriment of all Canadians.
I contributed to the Liberal Party and Trudeau's election because of electoral reform. In my view the Liberal Party defrauded us; I stopped contributing and walked away. Trudeau can go to hell.
As a side note I happened to meet the former Jack Layton, then leader of the NDP, and asked why on earth (given the NDP said it was a priority) he didn't squeeze Paul Martin for electoral reform, given he had him over a barrel at the time. Jack said he got other stuff - clearly it isn't an NDP priority either.
The tail (politicians) is wagging the dog (citizens). Pretty sad.
Brian - We wouldn't mind if Trudeau killed democratic reform through a democratic process (referendum). We wouldn't care what particular options are on the menu either, if we were provided a say - we have been provided ZERO say in the matter.
I passionately care that citizens are being denied a right to have their say. Politicians of all stripes have worked to subvert democracy, and they should all be ashamed.
Great points, but here's the thing...non-proportional winner-take-all RCV can distort results even more than first past the post. It will keep our politics as divided and hostile as they are now under FPTP, and serve to block future reform.
Here's why RCV is problematic, and, in my view, not a good or viable solution for us.
1)
It can deliver results that are even LESS fair/proportional than FPTP.
Expert testimony to the ERRE concluded that RCV was the one system that would deliver results that were less proportional than FPTP. The UK Independent Commission on the Voting System concluded the same thing previously.
False majority governments would continue under RCV just like with FPTP—governments will get all the power even though they were the first choice of less than 50% of the voters. The proof of that? Australia. Of the nearly 30 majority governments in Australia since 1949, only ONE had the support of 50% of voters.
RCV risks exaggerating landslides even more. Again, the proof of this is in Australia. In their 2021 state-level election for Western Australia, which uses RCV, the victorious Labor Party won 90% of the seats with only 60% of the popular vote. Whereas their Liberal Party only received 3% of the seats, despite getting 21% of the popular vote.
Compare that to the same 2021 state election for Tasmania, which uses STV. The Liberals won 52% of the seats with 49% of the popular vote. And Labor got 36% of seats with 29% of votes. Much fairer and more proportional than the WA results.
2)
RCV isn't supported by evidence.
In our ERRE, 88% of the independent experts recommended proportional representation and only 4% recommended RCV.
There was less support among experts for RCV than for FPTP, even. No previous electoral reform commission or committee in Canada has ever recommended RCV, because it continues or exaggerates the problems with FPTP.
There are only two countries that use RCV to elect governments at the national or provincial/state level: Australia and Papua New Guinea. By contrast, over 80% of OECD countries (35 out of 38 in total) use proportional systems.
3)
RCV will continue adversarial, hyper-partisan politics.
In a recent study, researchers at Harvard and Columbia University concludes that RCV, instead of encouraging moderation, can “intensify candidates’ incentives to target their core supporters at the cost of a broader appeal.”
Under RCV, elections will remain a vicious fight mainly between the two biggest parties. Just like under FPTP.
Again, Australia is the best example of that. Their politics under RCV are just as polarized as it in other countries with FPTP. In fact, debate become so hostile that their MPs have been booted from Parliament by the Speaker hundreds of times over just a couple of years—and this pattern is only getting worse.
There is little cooperation between parties in Parliament because RCV still almost always produces false majority governments. This means the two big parties attack each other in hopes of gaining or keeping 100% of the power at the next election. Sound familiar?
Trust in political institutions hit an all-time low in Australia. A 2019 election study showed that only 12% of people think the government is run “for the people” and 56% believe it is run for “a few big interests”. Again, sound familiar?
4)
RCV could drive us even closer to an essentially two-party system.
The one thing RCV has done well in practice in Australia is to funnel almost all the votes for third parties and smaller parties into the baskets of the two big tent parties. Instead of more accurately reflecting the diversity of the voters, RCV could make the near-monopoly/duopoly the Liberals and Conservatives already have in our system even worse.
Australia's 2 major parties - Labor and Liberal - won, on average, 87% of seats prior to their adoption of RCV in 1918. In the century since, they've actually expanded their share, averaging 96% of seats. RCV made the problem worse, not better.
5) RCV continues the problem of policy lurch
Policy lurch occurs when one government almost completely reverses the policies of the previous government. (For example, in Alberta, Jason Kenney promised to spend the first 100 days undoing Rachel Notley’s policies). Policy lurch has had a devastating effect on climate policy in Australia. Australia ranks last for policy on the Climate Performance Index and near the bottom for overall performance. Evidence shows that countries with proportional representation outperform winner-take-all countries on climate performance, in part because they are able to make progress, sustain it, and gradually improve over time.
6) RCV does not end strategic voting.
Any winner-take-all system where a single party can get 100% of the power with less than 50% of the votes will be rife with strategic voting based on deliberate fear-mongering — parties telling you how you must vote to stop the “bad guys” from winning and to deliver the most votes to them.
RCV just changes what strategic voting looks like. The ranked ballot allows you to put your true preference in the #1 position (so you may feel better for the moment), while the big parties fight it out for the strategic #2 votes from voters in a few swing ridings (the only ridings that matter, just like in FPTP).
In Australia, parties push “how to vote” cards telling voters how to rank their choices. They stoke fear about what will happen if you mark your ballot otherwise (i.e., you’ll help the bad guys win), and social media is full of misinformation about what happens to your preferences.
In other parts of Australia, the parties urge supporters to only mark only their first preference – to use the ranked ballot just like FPTP – with dishonest messages about what bad things could happen if you rank more choices.
In any case, unless your #1 choice is the most popular candidate in the riding, your true preference will be ignored anyway. Just like with FPTP, the real battle is between the two biggest parties in your riding. Your strategic third or fourth choice almost always ends up helping the big party you happen to dislike less than the other big party your dislike more. Just like your strategic vote does now under FPTP.
7) RCV makes it even harder for voters of third and smaller parties to be fairly represented.
For example, the Green Party in Australia regularly gets over 10% of the popular vote in (twice the support of Canadian Greens) but over many elections until 2022, they were only ever been able to elect ONE MP to their Parliament. In the 2022 election they got 4 MPs –only 2% of the seats despite getting 12% of the vote.
In 2019, parties other than the big two Liberals and Labor got over 25% of the vote – but only 3% of the seats.
8) RCV is highly likely to benefit one party over others - the Liberal Party.
Different experts (going back to 1980), multiple simulations, and an actual mock vote run alongside an election have all shown the same thing here: RCV would significantly benefit the Liberal Party at the expense of others. When Trudeau pushes that option, it’s clearly for his own partisan self-interest, rather than a true commitment to democratic reform and improving our dysfunctional electoral system.
Being the second sincere or strategic choice of both left-wing and right-wing voters in those crucial swing ridings, the Liberals would very likely win even more the seats, despite having no more popular support than they do now. This could deliver grossly exaggerated false majority governments even more frequently, where no compromise or power-sharing is required.
So, in conclusion, RCV definitely isn't the answer.
You've provided several standard arguments against proportional representation (PR) and in favour of single-member riding, winner-take-all ranked choice voting (RCV). However, many of these arguments actually lack substantial evidence proving them conclusively, or fail to consider the broader implications of electoral systems. Let's address each point:
PR vs. RCV:
The argument that RCV provides more choice for voters is valid. However, it overlooks the fundamental principle of PR, which aims to ensure that the composition of the legislature reflects the overall preferences of the electorate. RCV, as a winner-take-all system within individual districts, can still lead to disproportionate outcomes, particularly if there are significant variations in voter preferences across districts.
Additionally, RCV does not guarantee that the winning candidate has true majority support among all/most voters, as it only considers the preferences of those who rank the top candidates. PR, on the other hand, allocates seats in proportion to the overall vote share received by each party, resulting in a more accurate reflection of voter preferences.
PR-STV is the best of both worlds -- combining both preferential ranking (so, greater choice and say on the ballot), greater local representation by a "team" of MPs encapsulating the aggregate true majority of voters' political wishes in the region/area/district, and greater overall proportionality in the aggregate results across the country
Impact on Third Parties and Polarization:
The argument that PR leads to the proliferation of smaller regional or single-issue parties overlooks several factors --
1) places which use proportional systems similar to what has been recommended for Canada do not have a significantly more parties with seats than Canada does. New Zealand and Scotland for example – countries using PR systems similar to those recommended for Canada – have 5 parties with seats in their legislatures, same as us here.
2) regional / single-issue parties are already well entrenched in our FPTP system anyway - the BQ and the Greens. FPTP hasn't been that effective in keeping them out.
3) PR systems include mechanisms such as electoral thresholds to prevent excessive fragmentation (i.e., more fringe parties getting seats than they do now). Usually 4-5% of votes as a minimum.
Also, the way proportional systems for Canada would likely be designed – with results being proportional on a regional basis, or within a small multi-member district – means there will be a limited number of seats to fill in each region/district. The threshold to win a seat in many regions/districts would be higher than 5% by the design of the system. If a region elects 8 members, for example, a party may need about 12% of the vote to be guaranteed a seat.
In Canada’s last few federal elections, all 15-20 “fringe” parties put together (excluding the Greens and the PPC) didn’t even get 1% of the vote.
4) PR systems can promote coalition-building and consensus politics, rather than exacerbating polarization. The assertion that PR tends to lead to left-right coalitions and extremism is a disingenuous oversimplification, overlooking the diverse range of party systems and political dynamics observed in countries with PR electoral systems.
Potential Benefits of RCV for Party Dynamics:
While it's true that RCV may lead to changes in party strategies and electoral outcomes, it's important to consider whether such changes align with broader democratic values and goals. RCV may incentivize parties to engage in negative campaigning or strategic alliances to secure second or third preferences, rather than fostering genuine dialogue and consensus-building for better policy outcomes. As I said before, the Australian example proves that tendency amply.
You do raise some valid points about the potential benefits of RCV, but your arguments against PR are flawed, and overlook the crucial broader principles of true, fair democratic representation and accountability. A more nuanced analysis is necessary to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different electoral systems in achieving these democratic ideals.
It's really RCV that's dead in Canada. It's what the PM wanted, and it still couldn't get any traction. "We could implement ranked ballots like that," ERRE Chair Francis Scarpaleggia said. "No one wants it."
Nate, thanks for your attention on this. As my MP, you should know that this makes me extremely upset. The last time I voted Liberal was in 2015 when electoral reform was one of the main promises of JT and the Liberal Party. After assuming office and quickly stomping on that idea, I lost interest. I have voted Green in the last two general elections.
For me, electoral reform (specifically a move away from FPTP) is the single most important issue facing this country, as it effects all other issues. We continue to lack the ability to have nuanced conversations on extremely important subjects like healthcare, housing and climate change in Ontario and at the Federal level, and I'm sure in other provinces as well. FPTP is simply not conducive to creating an environment where policy makers can create solutions with depth.
We need an environment where a variety of voices have power, not just the Liberals or Conservatives. Winner takes all means the winner creates half-assed solutions to the detriment of all Canadians.
I contributed to the Liberal Party and Trudeau's election because of electoral reform. In my view the Liberal Party defrauded us; I stopped contributing and walked away. Trudeau can go to hell.
As a side note I happened to meet the former Jack Layton, then leader of the NDP, and asked why on earth (given the NDP said it was a priority) he didn't squeeze Paul Martin for electoral reform, given he had him over a barrel at the time. Jack said he got other stuff - clearly it isn't an NDP priority either.
The tail (politicians) is wagging the dog (citizens). Pretty sad.
Brian - We wouldn't mind if Trudeau killed democratic reform through a democratic process (referendum). We wouldn't care what particular options are on the menu either, if we were provided a say - we have been provided ZERO say in the matter.
I passionately care that citizens are being denied a right to have their say. Politicians of all stripes have worked to subvert democracy, and they should all be ashamed.
Great points, but here's the thing...non-proportional winner-take-all RCV can distort results even more than first past the post. It will keep our politics as divided and hostile as they are now under FPTP, and serve to block future reform.
Here's why RCV is problematic, and, in my view, not a good or viable solution for us.
1)
It can deliver results that are even LESS fair/proportional than FPTP.
Expert testimony to the ERRE concluded that RCV was the one system that would deliver results that were less proportional than FPTP. The UK Independent Commission on the Voting System concluded the same thing previously.
False majority governments would continue under RCV just like with FPTP—governments will get all the power even though they were the first choice of less than 50% of the voters. The proof of that? Australia. Of the nearly 30 majority governments in Australia since 1949, only ONE had the support of 50% of voters.
RCV risks exaggerating landslides even more. Again, the proof of this is in Australia. In their 2021 state-level election for Western Australia, which uses RCV, the victorious Labor Party won 90% of the seats with only 60% of the popular vote. Whereas their Liberal Party only received 3% of the seats, despite getting 21% of the popular vote.
Compare that to the same 2021 state election for Tasmania, which uses STV. The Liberals won 52% of the seats with 49% of the popular vote. And Labor got 36% of seats with 29% of votes. Much fairer and more proportional than the WA results.
2)
RCV isn't supported by evidence.
In our ERRE, 88% of the independent experts recommended proportional representation and only 4% recommended RCV.
There was less support among experts for RCV than for FPTP, even. No previous electoral reform commission or committee in Canada has ever recommended RCV, because it continues or exaggerates the problems with FPTP.
There are only two countries that use RCV to elect governments at the national or provincial/state level: Australia and Papua New Guinea. By contrast, over 80% of OECD countries (35 out of 38 in total) use proportional systems.
3)
RCV will continue adversarial, hyper-partisan politics.
In a recent study, researchers at Harvard and Columbia University concludes that RCV, instead of encouraging moderation, can “intensify candidates’ incentives to target their core supporters at the cost of a broader appeal.”
Under RCV, elections will remain a vicious fight mainly between the two biggest parties. Just like under FPTP.
Again, Australia is the best example of that. Their politics under RCV are just as polarized as it in other countries with FPTP. In fact, debate become so hostile that their MPs have been booted from Parliament by the Speaker hundreds of times over just a couple of years—and this pattern is only getting worse.
There is little cooperation between parties in Parliament because RCV still almost always produces false majority governments. This means the two big parties attack each other in hopes of gaining or keeping 100% of the power at the next election. Sound familiar?
Trust in political institutions hit an all-time low in Australia. A 2019 election study showed that only 12% of people think the government is run “for the people” and 56% believe it is run for “a few big interests”. Again, sound familiar?
4)
RCV could drive us even closer to an essentially two-party system.
The one thing RCV has done well in practice in Australia is to funnel almost all the votes for third parties and smaller parties into the baskets of the two big tent parties. Instead of more accurately reflecting the diversity of the voters, RCV could make the near-monopoly/duopoly the Liberals and Conservatives already have in our system even worse.
Australia's 2 major parties - Labor and Liberal - won, on average, 87% of seats prior to their adoption of RCV in 1918. In the century since, they've actually expanded their share, averaging 96% of seats. RCV made the problem worse, not better.
5) RCV continues the problem of policy lurch
Policy lurch occurs when one government almost completely reverses the policies of the previous government. (For example, in Alberta, Jason Kenney promised to spend the first 100 days undoing Rachel Notley’s policies). Policy lurch has had a devastating effect on climate policy in Australia. Australia ranks last for policy on the Climate Performance Index and near the bottom for overall performance. Evidence shows that countries with proportional representation outperform winner-take-all countries on climate performance, in part because they are able to make progress, sustain it, and gradually improve over time.
6) RCV does not end strategic voting.
Any winner-take-all system where a single party can get 100% of the power with less than 50% of the votes will be rife with strategic voting based on deliberate fear-mongering — parties telling you how you must vote to stop the “bad guys” from winning and to deliver the most votes to them.
RCV just changes what strategic voting looks like. The ranked ballot allows you to put your true preference in the #1 position (so you may feel better for the moment), while the big parties fight it out for the strategic #2 votes from voters in a few swing ridings (the only ridings that matter, just like in FPTP).
In Australia, parties push “how to vote” cards telling voters how to rank their choices. They stoke fear about what will happen if you mark your ballot otherwise (i.e., you’ll help the bad guys win), and social media is full of misinformation about what happens to your preferences.
In other parts of Australia, the parties urge supporters to only mark only their first preference – to use the ranked ballot just like FPTP – with dishonest messages about what bad things could happen if you rank more choices.
In any case, unless your #1 choice is the most popular candidate in the riding, your true preference will be ignored anyway. Just like with FPTP, the real battle is between the two biggest parties in your riding. Your strategic third or fourth choice almost always ends up helping the big party you happen to dislike less than the other big party your dislike more. Just like your strategic vote does now under FPTP.
7) RCV makes it even harder for voters of third and smaller parties to be fairly represented.
For example, the Green Party in Australia regularly gets over 10% of the popular vote in (twice the support of Canadian Greens) but over many elections until 2022, they were only ever been able to elect ONE MP to their Parliament. In the 2022 election they got 4 MPs –only 2% of the seats despite getting 12% of the vote.
In 2019, parties other than the big two Liberals and Labor got over 25% of the vote – but only 3% of the seats.
8) RCV is highly likely to benefit one party over others - the Liberal Party.
Different experts (going back to 1980), multiple simulations, and an actual mock vote run alongside an election have all shown the same thing here: RCV would significantly benefit the Liberal Party at the expense of others. When Trudeau pushes that option, it’s clearly for his own partisan self-interest, rather than a true commitment to democratic reform and improving our dysfunctional electoral system.
Being the second sincere or strategic choice of both left-wing and right-wing voters in those crucial swing ridings, the Liberals would very likely win even more the seats, despite having no more popular support than they do now. This could deliver grossly exaggerated false majority governments even more frequently, where no compromise or power-sharing is required.
So, in conclusion, RCV definitely isn't the answer.
You've provided several standard arguments against proportional representation (PR) and in favour of single-member riding, winner-take-all ranked choice voting (RCV). However, many of these arguments actually lack substantial evidence proving them conclusively, or fail to consider the broader implications of electoral systems. Let's address each point:
PR vs. RCV:
The argument that RCV provides more choice for voters is valid. However, it overlooks the fundamental principle of PR, which aims to ensure that the composition of the legislature reflects the overall preferences of the electorate. RCV, as a winner-take-all system within individual districts, can still lead to disproportionate outcomes, particularly if there are significant variations in voter preferences across districts.
Additionally, RCV does not guarantee that the winning candidate has true majority support among all/most voters, as it only considers the preferences of those who rank the top candidates. PR, on the other hand, allocates seats in proportion to the overall vote share received by each party, resulting in a more accurate reflection of voter preferences.
PR-STV is the best of both worlds -- combining both preferential ranking (so, greater choice and say on the ballot), greater local representation by a "team" of MPs encapsulating the aggregate true majority of voters' political wishes in the region/area/district, and greater overall proportionality in the aggregate results across the country
Impact on Third Parties and Polarization:
The argument that PR leads to the proliferation of smaller regional or single-issue parties overlooks several factors --
1) places which use proportional systems similar to what has been recommended for Canada do not have a significantly more parties with seats than Canada does. New Zealand and Scotland for example – countries using PR systems similar to those recommended for Canada – have 5 parties with seats in their legislatures, same as us here.
2) regional / single-issue parties are already well entrenched in our FPTP system anyway - the BQ and the Greens. FPTP hasn't been that effective in keeping them out.
3) PR systems include mechanisms such as electoral thresholds to prevent excessive fragmentation (i.e., more fringe parties getting seats than they do now). Usually 4-5% of votes as a minimum.
Also, the way proportional systems for Canada would likely be designed – with results being proportional on a regional basis, or within a small multi-member district – means there will be a limited number of seats to fill in each region/district. The threshold to win a seat in many regions/districts would be higher than 5% by the design of the system. If a region elects 8 members, for example, a party may need about 12% of the vote to be guaranteed a seat.
In Canada’s last few federal elections, all 15-20 “fringe” parties put together (excluding the Greens and the PPC) didn’t even get 1% of the vote.
4) PR systems can promote coalition-building and consensus politics, rather than exacerbating polarization. The assertion that PR tends to lead to left-right coalitions and extremism is a disingenuous oversimplification, overlooking the diverse range of party systems and political dynamics observed in countries with PR electoral systems.
Potential Benefits of RCV for Party Dynamics:
While it's true that RCV may lead to changes in party strategies and electoral outcomes, it's important to consider whether such changes align with broader democratic values and goals. RCV may incentivize parties to engage in negative campaigning or strategic alliances to secure second or third preferences, rather than fostering genuine dialogue and consensus-building for better policy outcomes. As I said before, the Australian example proves that tendency amply.
You do raise some valid points about the potential benefits of RCV, but your arguments against PR are flawed, and overlook the crucial broader principles of true, fair democratic representation and accountability. A more nuanced analysis is necessary to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different electoral systems in achieving these democratic ideals.
It's really RCV that's dead in Canada. It's what the PM wanted, and it still couldn't get any traction. "We could implement ranked ballots like that," ERRE Chair Francis Scarpaleggia said. "No one wants it."