First meeting of Electoral Reform Committee

The most interesting and innovative idea to come out of the first meeting of the all-party Special Committee on Electoral Reform, or ERRE, was Nathan Cullen's suggestion, seconded by Elizabeth May, to allow members of the public access to question the expert witnesses before the committee in real time via email or twitter hashtag.

Cullen (paraphrased @mark 18:00) :  As MPs we will have the privilege and advantage of engagement with experts from around the world, and with televised meetings Canadians can be learning right alongside us. It is always possible a Canadian will notice something we have missed or have a completely different insight or perspective on expert testimony that will open up avenues we had not considered before. Their questions can be sent to the impartial clerk of the committee and read out by the Chair in the equivalent of one MPs speaking slot. [That would be about six minutes for Q&A]

May : Seconded. The more Canadians are able to interact with this unprecedented committee and its witnesses, the more interested and informed they will be. Instead of thinking - gee I wish they'd asked *this* question, they can submit it. This will reach tens of thousands more Canadians.

DeCourcey : Open and accessible is good but we're already conducting consults in our ridings. What if the same person sends in questions over and over again? [Note : Clerk could deal with that!] Send motion to subcommittee for study. [DeCourcey warmed to the idea as debate progressed]

Kenney : 

"My primary concern about this motion is that it proposes a fundamental change in the role and nature of parliamentary committee thereby creating a precedent before we've studied the implications of such a precedent. This is a parliamentary committee ... woof woof woof ... We are not here to be conduits for twitter or other platforms of social media in which there is sometimes a robust and vulgar public debate ... woof woof woof... " 

Kenney suggested if Cullen were so keen on this idea, he could give up one of his own allotted speaking slots to questions from the public ; Cullen said he would be willing to do that.

May : This isn't radical, will engage young people and lend to the legitimacy of this process.

Cullen : "This process is not ours - This entire conversation belongs to Canadians."

A majority vote in favour sent Cullen's motion to the untelevised subcommittee for study ... from whence it may or may not return. We'll see. 

Meantime, send @ElizabethMay and @nathancullen kudos for their excellent work here.

Cullen's motion : 

"That the committee alot the equivalent of one MP's speaking spot per meeting to hear questions directly from Canadians at each meeting with witnesses, that the committee receive questions from Canadians via the committee's email address and twitter hashtag #yourvotecanada #yourvotecda, and that questions be reviewed and selected by the clerk of the committee and posed to the witnesses by the Chair."

Marc Mayrand on Election Reform and Referendum

Elections Canada CEO Marc Mayrand at PROC (Procedures Committee), excerpted :

"With a majority government in place, as well as a fixed election date of October 21, 2019, there is an opportunity now to bring the electoral process, currently anchored in the 19th century, in line with contemporary Canadian expectations."

On holding a referendum on choosing a new voting system as advocated by the Cons :

"The Referendum Act is outdated. It has not been changed since 1992, which was the last time we had a national referendum. In that regard, it is very much out of sync with the Elections Act, particularly around political financing. For example, unions and corporations could contribute to referendum committees. I think that may come as a shock. There is no limit on contributions by any entities. Again, that may come as a shock, but the legislation still stands."

"Six months minimum to set up a national referendum." 

On amending the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act for STV or MMP or ...

"The bare minimum for a standard redistribution is 10 months.There are another seven months after that for implementing. You need to redesign all the maps across each riding and reorganize the poll divisions to reflect the new riding boundaries."

On time needed to revamp the whole system in time for the 2019 election :

"Legislation enacting the reform should be there at least 24 months before the election.Once you have the redistribution, you would need six to seven months to implement the new maps, the new districts, and then we would need to get ready for the election. We would need to prepare all the training. We would also need to build the systems that would support this new regime. We can assume that there would be a need for major public education." Also for parties, candidates, election officials.

On new Election Day technology :

"You have the electronic lists available at the polls. That means that someone who is showing up at the poll shows a voter ID card. The card is scanned, their name is struck out of the list immediately, and automatically it's valid across the country, so that person cannot show up somewhere else later during the day. As a result of that, they get their ballot. We could consider entering them into a tabulator, so, again, the results would be instant on election night."

On advance polls :

"This time around, 25% of all Canadian voters showed up at advance polls. Similarly, we had a 117% increase in voting by mail—in this day and age, yes.We estimate that serving an electorate at an advance poll takes roughly 10 to 15 minutes. If you have 10 people ahead of you, and you're the eleventh, imagine the time it takes. If you see three or four tables that are free, why can't you go to them? If I show up at any store I'll go to the checkout that is available. Why can I not do that?"

"The other thing that we need to look at is automating procedures. If you have voted at an advance poll, you know that electors, when they show up, have to prove their ID, etc. Then their name has to be searched in a big paper document, and they have to enter the name and address and they have to sign. There's no reason in this day and age that it still needs to happen this way. We would be looking at automation. There are good reasons that controls are in place: to ensure that the vote is reliable. However, I think there are big opportunities for automation and better service at the polls."

Mr Mayrand also referred to four other Elections Canada issues that in my opinion should be addressed before the next election.

On removal of voter identification card as a valid piece of identification in the 2015 Federal Election: 

"Voter ID was a barrier for 172,000 people who claimed that not being able to prove their ID or address was an issue for them, and therefore they did not vote according to the Statscan Labour Force Survey"."There is no national ID card of any sort that meets the requirements of the Elections Act."

On voter education outreach :

"Our mandate now is restricted to non-voters, those who are under the voting age." 

"Elections Canada is, in fact, the only body in the world that I know of that cannot promote democracy within the country."

On expenses reimbursement to political parties after an election :

Approximately $60M goes back to our respective political parties—no receipts required. 

On the power to compel witnesses :

"The commissioner cannot compel witnesses.""The commissioner's office was moved from Elections Canada to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is reporting through the DPP and through the Attorney General. It's not an office of Parliament, so it doesn't report directly to Parliament."

Note : I took Mayrand's remarks on electoral reform and a potential referendum out of the order in which they were made and bumped them up to the top of the post. These quotes are responses made to questions from the MPs at PROC.

.

Liberal Majority Electoral Reform Committee

Electoral Reform Committee announced today: Liberal Chair. Six Liberals, three Cons, 1 NDP.  Elizabeth May and one Bloc sit in but no voting rights. 

That's likely 9 to 1 against adopting any form of proportional representation.

For a preview of how 9 to 1 committee dynamics work, take a look at last week's Finance Committee vote, same numerical party makeup as above, as they debated a motion to "compel" KPMG to account for hiding Canadian tax dollars offshore.
How'd that work out for us?

Last word goes to PM Justin Trudeau : "A good political party that has the right kind of platform or program for Canadians should be able to make any system work."

Presumably especially one that guarantees Liberal majorities forever.

Thursday update :
G&M : Only proportionality will fix our democratic malaise
Chantal Hébert, Star : Electoral reform deck appears stacked by the Liberals to fail
Coyne, NaPo : On electoral reform: Are the Liberals conning us, again?
Fingas, Leader-Post : Trudeau's urge to control — just like the Tories
CBC May 13 At Issue Panel : Electoral Reform
.

Election reform referendumb

.

Canada Votes 2015 - FPtP vs PropRep

2011 vs 2015

In 2011, Conservatives won 53.9% of the seats with 39.6% of the popular vote.

In 2015, Liberals won 54.4% of the seats with 39.5% of the popular vote.

In 2011, voter turnout was 61%.   In 2015, voter turnout was 68.5%.

900,000 voters unrepresented :

93.88 % of Green Party voters couldn’t elect anyone
76.78%  of Bloc voters couldn’t elect anyone
74.5% of NDP voters couldn’t elect anyone
50.98 % of Conservative voters couldn’t elect anyone
33.49% of Liberal voters couldn’t elect anyone



.

How strategic is strategic voting?

Jamie Biggar of Leadnow.ca and David Bush of RankandFile.ca debate whether such a strategy is useful or effective. 
Good respectful discussion of the issues involved. 
You'll have to restart it from the beginning.

Transcript at The Real News Network
.

Prop Rep vote in the House tomorrow

[post updated below]

Here's what the last federal election results would have looked like under Prop Rep 

as compared to what we got with First Past the Post :

Although the Cons increased their vote percentage by less than two points, this was enough to give them 24 more seats than in 2008, when they were already over-represented anyway.

From Fair Vote Canada via email :

Fair Vote Canada has just learned that NDP Democratic Reform Critic Craig Scott will introduce the following motion for PR to the House of Commons tomorrow afternoon (Wednesday December 3).

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."

There will be a two-hour debate 3:15 to 5:30 EST. The vote will occur at 6:45 PM EST

We need you to contact your MP now! Find your MP's phone number and email here.  

The NDP has committed to implementing Mixed Member Proportional Representation if elected in 2015, with an all-party and citizen task force to create the best design. MMP with open, regional lists (meaning, all MPs are elected by voters and all MPs are local) is the model recommended in 2004 by the Law Commission of Canada. Eight provincial commissions have also recommended MMP.

The Green Party also supports implementing proportional representation before 2019. 

The Liberal Party of Canada is calling for an all-party process involving citizens and experts to look at all electoral reform options - including other winner-take-all systems and proportional systems - in the first 12 months following the 2015 election. 

Background:
There are two major families of voting systems in the world: Proportional, and Winner-take-all ("majoritarian/plurality"). All evidence indicates that to replace one winner-take-all voting system with another is simply to replicate almost every problem we face now with first-past-the-post. 10 commissions, 14 years of polls, and decades of research says Canada needs a more proportional solution.

Proportional representation is based on a couple of key principles: 

a) Voter equality - your vote should count towards electing a representative you want, and
b) if a party earns 30% of the popular vote, they should earn roughly 30% of the seats.

There are a variety of ways proportional representation could be designed for Canada. Fair Vote Canada does not endorse only one proportional system.

Regardless of whether your MP supports Mixed Member Proportional in particular, please urge them to vote YES to this motion if they support the premise that every vote should count. Amendments to motions are possible and a yes vote to this motion will open the door for a process to design the best electoral system for Canada, consistent with Fair Vote Canada's 2015 campaign. Achieving PR will require parties working together in an all party process.

This motion is a reflection of the momentum that is building across the country for votes that count. We need as many MPs to speak in favour of proportional representation as possible to move this issue forward now.

Please take a moment to let your MP know that you want him or her to be a strong voice for proportional representation. 

Thank you for helping us Make 2015 the Last Unfair Election!

Fair Vote Canada

{end of email}

Maybe if we didn't have a system that coerces us into tactical or strategic voting, we could vote for who we really wanted, and knowing that our votes actually counted for something might get more than 61% of us to show up to vote. 

Wednesday Update : Motion defeated 166 to 109. 

Yeas - All NDP plus Greens Elizabeth May and Bruce Hyer, Bloc Claude Patry and Louis Plamondon, and Independents Brent Rathgeber, Maria Mourani, and Manon Perreault. 

Nays - All Cons, plus Independents Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti 

16 Libs voted Yea - Mauril Bélanger, Carolyn Bennett, Scott Brison, Rodger Cuzner, Stephane Dion, Kirsty Duncan, Wayne Easter, Mark Eyking, Hedy Fry, Ted Hsu, John McCallum, David McGuinty, John McKay, Joyce Murray, Frank Valeriote, Adam Vaughan

15 Libs voted Nay : Justin Trudeau, Gerry Byrne, Emmanuel Dubourg, Judy Foote, Chrystia Freeland, Marc Garneau, Ralph Goodale, Yvonne Jones, Kevin Lamoureux, Dominic LeBlanc, Lawrence MacAuley, Geoff Regan, Francis Scarpaleggia, Judy Sgro, Scott Simms

Half the Libs - aka the Nays - would prefer a preferential ballot system, an alternative but slightly more democratic winner-take-all system similar to first past the post. And here's why ...

On Power and Politics tonight, Eric Grenier of 308dotcom laid out what seat count the three different systems would deliver, according to his current polling. 

Note these figures above are only based on polls.

[Edited to correct omission of Manon Perreault]

.

The Fair Elections Action Plan

What problems are the Conservatives really trying to solve with bizarre Fair Elections Act?wrote Andrew Coyne in an excellent column two days ago.
I'd like to pillage that model and expand on it a bit.

Problem : Investigation into election fraud in 2011 Election 33 months ago being rushed along at dangerous breakneck speeds.

Fair Elections Act Solutions : 
1) Deny Elections Commissioner authority to compel documents and witness testimony (with individual authorizations from the courts)  - a power nonetheless already enjoyed by elections chiefs in most provinces : Yukon, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. 
Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand on CBC's The House yesterday :

"Many people refused to talk to the commissioner even if they were not suspects. I'm afraid to say this is happening more and more in files investigated by the commissioner."

2) The Del Mastro clause. Require Elections Canada to inform subjects they are being investigated while preventing EC from telling the public about it.


Problem : Public trust in fair elections in Canada at all time high.

Fair Elections Act solutions : 
1) Governing party rewrites election law while being investigating by Elections Canada for election fraud.
2) Don't consult with Chief Electoral Officer before tabling major overhaul of Elections Act.
3) Deny Elections Canada commissioner access to parties' and riding associations' financial documentation to support claims made on their financial returns. 
4) Forbid Elections Canada from communicating with public. Mayrand :

"Most reports and research will no longer be public - not only not available but probably won't be done at all. 

I can no longer speak about democracy in this country except where and when to vote. I am not aware of any other electoral bodies around the world who cannot talk about democracy."   

then cut off debate about the bill in the HoC, sending it to PROC with its 6 out of 10 Con committee members.

Problem :  Serially violate election law successfully but then lose court battles to election watchdog.

Solution : Neutralize watchdog by moving entire elections enforcement apparatus from current independent office answerable to Parliament to inside Peter MacKay's ministry.

Problem : Too many people vote - 61% in the last federal election - especially aboriginals, young people, old people, and poor people.

Solutions : 
1) Forbid Elections Canada from encouraging voting, including terminating the mock elections model currently being taught to 300,000 Canadian students.
2) Voter suppression. Kill off vouching *** - the provision allowing an elector to prove their residence in a riding by having someone they know in the riding who is registered to vote sign a legal document.  Marc Mayrand on CBC's The House again :

"Every Canadian has the right to vote. That's a universal franchise. Vouching is meant to assist people facing challenges. We estimate that in the last election a little over 100,000 electors required vouching before they could cast a ballot. What will happen to those electors in the next election?"

Neufeld Compliance Review, commissioned by Elections Canada :

"The audit estimated that “irregularities” occurred for 1.3 percent of all cases of Election Day voting during the 2011 federal election."

and of those irregularities, "0.4 percent of ballots had irregularities due to vouching - of which the vast majority were cases of misfiled paperwork, not misidentified voters."

Problem : Parties not spending enough time and money on elections 

Solutions : 

1) Bump allowable individual contribution limit up by 25% with yearly increases to follow.

2) Bump party spending limits directed at new members up by 5% ($22-million).

3) Permit parties to exclude from declaring as a campaign expenditure any communication with electors as long as it's done with an elector that has contributed before in the previous five years and that it includes a call for additional money.

Mayrand : "20 to 25% of total expenditure goes to GOTV"

Problem : Incumbents don't have enough advantage over new candidates.

Solution :  See Solution #3 above.

Problem : Not enough Pierre Poutine robocalls are being made during elections.

Solution : Ditto

Problem : Not allowed to campaign on Election Day 

Solution : Ditto

***On a personal note, I have often relied on vouching in order to vote in my riding, despite having voted in every election I have been in the country for since I came of age to do so. I have a voter ID card, a Canadian passport, a Canadian citizenship card, a BC health care card, and a deed to the house in my riding which has been my only residence for decades. None of these have my address on them, including, according to Elections Canada, the deed to my house because it lists a rural RR# address they no longer recognize. I pay all my bills online or through my credit union. 

Just get a driver's licence says the harried DRO every time. 

Why? says I. Driving a car is not a requirement of citizenship.

.

Council of Canadians Phone Your MP Against Unfair Elections Act campaign is today!

.

h/t Beijing York for Mayrand interview - highly recommended. 

.

Pierre Poilievre, Minister for Democratic Reform

Who really thinks Skippy's appointment to Democratic Reform is about democratic reform? Ha!

Poilievre's appointment is about a coming battle over election reform and robocalls. It's been sixteen months since the Cons promised to bring in a bill addressing Mayrand's proposed reforms to prevent a repeat of last election's robocon fiasco.  The Cons have yet to consult Mayrand on it and he's been making public noises about their obstruction of his election fraud investigation as well.
Meanwhile the 2014 spring deadline past which reforms can't be implemented in time for the next election approaches...

Skippy's new job will be to attack Mayrand.
.
Thursday July8th Update :
 Glen McGregor : Poilievre brings robocalls expertise to new job

2014 Update : You have to admit I called it.
.

Coalition Steve

Fourteen years ago Stephen Harper co-authored a passionate plea for electoral reform and coalitions - including one with the Bloc. . . CBC's Terry Milewski has unearthed a position paper written by Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan in 1997 on the necessity of forming a coalition of conservative parties in order to overcome the "benign dictatorship" of a century of predominantly Liberal governments. . . .

Well we know how that worked out for the PC Tories - a not very benign coup by the Reform Party. But what's interesting is their acknowledgement of the Bloc/ separatists/ Quebec nationalists as necessary partners in their gaining and maintaining power in the past :

"Brian Mulroney swept to victory in 1984 by allying with Quebec separatists"

and the future :

ALONG THE TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY FROM CALGARY TO BANFF lies a prominent mountain called The Three Sisters. Legend has it that an Indian chief placed each of his three daughters on a separate peak to keep them away from unworthy suitors. The strategy succeeded so well that the three daughters died up there. Canadian conservatism is also a family of three sisters fated to perish in isolation unless they descend from their mountain tops and embrace more realistic expectations.

After the next federal election, Canadian conservatives may begin to encourage limited cooperation between Reform and the PCs, leading to a system of sister parties.

Both the Reform party and the Bloc Quebecois, or even the PCs, could go on for decades without ever becoming national parties; and through their survival as regional parties they could prevent the emergence of a national conservative party.

The lack of any strategic alliance among the sister parties, argues Steve and Tom, leads to "a war of attrition" among them due to our first-past-the-post system.

In the longer term, however, and assuming that Quebec remains in Canada, the alliance would find it hard to form a stable government without some Quebec support. On that basis, a strategic alliance of Quebec nationalists with conservatives outside Quebec might become possible, and it might be enough to sustain a government.

None of this will be easy or even likely. But experience shows that a monolithic conservative party is unworkable; so conservatives who are unhappy with a one-party-plus system featuring the Liberals as the perpetual governing party may have little choice but to construct an alliance, at least of the two anglophone sisters, and perhaps ultimately including a third sister.

... Quebec nationalism, while not in itself a conservative movement, appeals to the kinds of voters who in other provinces support conservative parties. The Bloc Quebecois is strongest in rural Quebec, among voters who would not be out of place in Red Deer, except that they speak French rather than English.

It may be that the third sister can never be brought back in. In the last century, Quebec nationalists, content with provincial autonomy and cultural preservation, could participate in Sir John A. Macdonald's Liberal-Conservative Party -- a single party in name but a coalition in substance, always with a strong "Quebec lieutenant." But now that Quebec nationalists have discovered sovereignty, they may never again see merit in a conservative coalition."

How to fix this. What follows is a passionate plea for electoral reform and proportional representation like they have in Europe.

Our parliamentary government creates a concentrated power structure out of step with other aspects of society. For Canadian democracy to mature, Canadian citizens must face these facts, as citizens in other countries have, and update our political structures to reflect the diverse political aspirations of our diverse communities.

Only in politics do we still entrust power to a single faction expected to prevail every time over the opposition by sheer force of numbers. Even more anachronistically, we persist in structuring the governing team like a military regiment under a single commander with almost total power to appoint, discipline and expel subordinates.

Some - *cough* - more than others.

Among major democracies, only Great Britain so ruthlessly concentrates power.

In most of the rest of Europe, proportional representation ensures that coalition governments routinely form cabinets. ... In New Zealand, which used to have a Canadian-style system of concentrated power, the voters rebelled against alternating Labour party and National party dictatorships: electoral reform now ensures coalition cabinets.

Modernizing Canadian politics would not only be good for conservatism, it might be the key to Canada's survival as a nation.

It's a fascinating read. And as a bonus - sure to outrage the Con cheerleaders who bought into Steve's current coalition monkey.
Yet I wonder if part of Harper's enraged obsession around "coalitions with separatists" is due to his feeling betrayed by the "third sister" he once envisioned as part of a conservative coalition. . . .

Many thanks to Kev in comments below for the Milewski link.
.

Electoral reform deniers

Remember this?

That third column of numbers is how our government would look today if we had had proportional representation during the last election, based on the percentage of votes cast for each party in January 2006. Results? Fewer seats for the Libs, the Cons, and the Bloc; more for the Greens and the Dippers.

Back in Dec., NDP MP Catherine Bell put forward a motion for electoral reform.

Last week she expressed her displeasure with the rightwing think tank the Cons chose to oversee it :

"MP Catherine Bell has revealed in Question Period this week that the Conservative government has contracted out public consultation on electoral reform to a right wing think tank that opposes electoral reform. 

In an exchange with the Minister for Democratic Reform, Bell said, “Let me introduce him to his new friends, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a neo-Conservative think tank against the idea of climate change. They want a private health care system. They like the idea of bulk water exports and they think trans fats are okay. Guess what? They are opposed to electoral reform. A special interest group has already hijacked the process”.

“This is cynical politics of the worst kind,” said Bell. First, the government should trust the work of Parliament’s own Committee and agree to engage in that process. But to hire a group that is publicly opposed to electoral reform is beyond the pale.” "

Gosh, who are the Frontier for Public Policy?

Their website does seem to be unusually full of global warming denial articles, but that only makes sense really when you consider that Tim Ball is on their board of the Research Advisors.

Plus there's

• Brian Lee Crowley, the guy behind the Atlantica concept.
• Wendell Cox, who wrote "The Wal-Mart Revolution: How Big-Box Stores Benefit Consumers, Workers, and the Economy."
• David Henderson of the American Enterprise Institute.
• Johan Hjertqvist, private health care advocate.

And many more all-too-familiar corporate shills.

Lots of interesting articles on their site too :

"Natives Don't Want Self-Rule"
"Vote For Choice In Marketing Barley"
"Like It or Not, Here Come Private Clinics"
"Global Warming Hypocrites"

Go check out their website.

After all, these are the guys the Cons have chosen to guide consultations on our electoral reform process, and they report privately to the Minister and not to parliament.

Minister Van Loan defended the Con government’s contracting out the consultation process with these words:

“the consultation that has begun is one that is designed to be representative of all Canadians and is a process that will do that without allowing the process to be hijacked by special interest groups.”

By "special interest groups", I'm guessing Van Loan must mean people who are interested in electoral reform.
.