The Cons mini-referendum

This summer the Conservative Party Caucus had themselves a mini-referendum about having a referendum about electoral reform. 

ERRE Committee vice-chair Scott Reid held a presser about it last Friday and was very pleased to announce a 90.6% approval rating of 73,740 YES votes from the 81,389 returned responses. 
Sure, the ballot only went out to 59 ridings held by Con MPs and allowed 4 responses per household, but still - a 90.6% approval rating for a referendum!

When a reporter asked how many ballots were originally sent out in order to get those 81,389 back, Reid expressed regret at not having those numbers available so I'm giving him a helping hand here. 

The total number of eligible electors in the 59 ridings cited is 4,613,620. I know because I added them up last night.

If 81,389 ballots were returned out of 4.6 million, that's a response rate of 1.76%. 
If 73,740 of those were YES REFERENDUM! votes, that's a 1.6% referendum approval rating, and it's a 1.6% referendum approval rating in Conservative-held ridings only, a third of which are in Alberta. 

I have no great quarrel with the 4 page CPC referendum/referendum itself - the explanations and questions are about what you might expect. But when you consider that it was received on the heels of a flyer saying a referendum was required to "stop the Liberals from rigging the 2019 election" in, for instance, Con MP Len Webber's riding of Calgary Confederation... well, lets just say that riding's 2.2% response rate probably indicates Calgary Confederationists are not setting their hair on fire over it. 

The CPC Caucus submission to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform contained the following tables about their mini-ref. I added two extra columns on the far right - total number of electors in the riding and the riding response rate to the questionnaire - to give their numbers some context. I also added the names of the MPs.  Click em to read em. 

So there ya go, Scott - your missing numbers. You're welcome.

Referendumpster fire

CPC MP and ERRE committee member Scott Reid held a presser today to lay out the CPC position on electoral reform : No referendum, no Consent to electoral reform.

Mr Reid cites the results of a householder CPC MPs sent to their constituents. Shocker : 90.6% of them voted for a referendum.

Wikipedia : 

"In Canadian politics, a Ten Percenter is a party political flyer that MPs have the right to mail — at no cost to themselves — to households in their own ridings, equivalent to 10% of the households in their constituency. They may also send the same flier to all of their constituents if they change 50% of the copy." 

Complaining that members of the public who show up to ERRE road show meetings are "self-selective" and therefore not representative of Canadians as a whole - a complaint also repeated in committee by ERRE Lib MP Sherry Romanado - Reid calls his survey of 59 Conservative ridings out of a total of 338 possible ridings "the largest sampling of views on this issue to date." Ok but 30% of ridings surveyed were in Alberta. Nothing "self-selective" there.

The 81,000 votes from across Canada returned to the Conservative office or the local riding MP include up to 4 votes permitted per household. To put that in context, 81K is the same number of voters found in the ridings of Ottawa West or North Vancouver. 
In Scott Reid's own riding of Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston with 77,808 voters, 1400 responded to his electoral referendum questionnaire ... which works out to a 1.8% response rate. 
So, you know, good effort, Cons.

Now Scott Reid has been personally in favour of implementing a proportional electoral system like STV since 2001 and his fellow ERRE member CPC Gerard Deltell also favours PR , but alas their hands are tied by the 2004 CPC founding charter which specifies that any electoral reform must be preceded by a referendum. Apparently their Bill C-23 Fair Elections Act didn't count.

Reid also reported he thinks a five-party committee consensus to proceed with a PR system is possible, that a public referendum on PR would pass, and that Elections Canada CEOs JP Kingsley and Marc Mayrand have said there is time before the next election in 2019 for both a referendum and a new electoral reform system provided the new system is not unduly complicated in the redrawing of ridings. 

So why are the CPCs the fly in the electoral reform ointment?

Reid notes that Minister Monsef has not proposed any specific model to replace FPtP or pledged to accept the committee's consensus position, supposing they reach one after this referendum ultimatum. 
Reid :

"Up til now, she has only said she'll take it under advisement so we can move towards that model. What I don't want to have happen is this : have the committee move towards some kind of conclusion and then the government says 'thank you very much, we're doing something else' because we have an ironclad commitment about 2019 and then impose a system that favours the governing party. That would obviously be completely unacceptable and I am anxious at all costs to make sure that doesn't happen."

I get this concern. I do. The dreaded Alternative Vote, a non-proportional system considered capable of keeping the Libs in power forever because the Libs are everyone's presumed first and/or second choice on a ranked ballot in a single seat riding, is right there in the ERRE committee road show handout and was included in the public e-consultation on the ERRE site.  

But after months of sending out householders like the one pictured at the top here - sent out prior to the committee rejig in May which allowed the Bloc and Elizabeth May a seat at the ERRE table and reduced the number of Liberals on committee from a majority of six down to four Libs plus the chair - together with your failure to hold town halls in your communities to inform yourselves and voters about possible alternatives to FPtP, and the fact your official seven page Conservative Caucus submission to ERRE today is about nothing but holding a referendum ...  well, Cons, you failed miserably at reaching out further afield than just to your dog-whistled fear-mongered householder base here to achieve that all-party consensus you claim to aspire to.

h/t Pat McGrail and James Valcke for the householder viz.
.

Electoral Reform for Dummies - that would be us.

Well that was then. 
Today some sixteen months later, having attended exactly zero electoral reform committee road meetings or community-based townhalls these past few weeks, our legacy media is jointly suggesting Trudeau throw in the towel.

Susan Delacourt : Time for Trudeau to cut his losses on electoral reform
"Mayrand just gave the Liberals a face-saving excuse. They should take it."

Ms Delacourt manages to interpret Elections Canada CEO Marc Mayrand's caution that :

any new electoral system should enjoy broad support beyond a simple majority of MPs (Liberal MPs, in this case) in the House of Commons.

“I believe that changes to the Elections Act should reflect a broad consensus, that’s for sure. And I believe that a single party, whatever the majority of that party is, should not be entitled to change the act unilaterally,” Mayrand said.

into an 'out' for Trudeau, as if somehow the NDP, Bloc, and Elizabeth May, not to mention the wildly cheering Canadian public who voted for reform above, do not count. 

Having hung this on something Mayrand didn't say, she goes on to speculate about "what Mayrand didn’t say (but could have)" and it goes downhill from there, although I give her points for not mentioning a referendum until several paras in - perhaps because Mayrand says it's unnecessary. 

"I don’t think electoral reform is a top-of-mind issue for Canadians," she says, apparently oblivious to the irony that, aside from Kady O'Malley, a media boycott might be having some bearing on that.

Toronto Star : Mayrand is right – give the people a voice on election reform: Editorial

The Star editorial board first plumps for a national referendum but settles for kicking reform down the road aways:

"Trudeau’s best move would be put election reform to a national vote and let Canadians chose the system they want, even if it means breaking a promise to do away with first-past-the-post during his first term in office."

Ditto the Ottawa Citizen : It's more important to do electoral reform right than to do it quickly

"First, the Liberals need to break the promise that 2015 will be the last first-past-the-post election. Second, they must replace that promise with a new one to pass enabling legislation for a voting system change prior to the 2019 election, but give up on the idea of implementation by that date."

So did you all get the same phone call from Butts?

Who have I missed here? The Sun papers are sticking with their slogan No Referendum, No Reform.  Oh, and the Globe and Mail - nothing from them. I guess their entire interest in electoral reform was exhausted in their Minister Monsef birther scoop.

Not really much use to us alive, are you, legacy media?


The truth is though there is a problem with the ERRE committee. 
Electoral reform advocates and activists remain resolutely positive and, in the spirit of the multi-party nature of the committee, open to whatever form of proportional representation is leading despite individual preferences for one system or another.
But underneath that there is concern.

Despite a mandate to come to a consensus about implementing a new electoral system, at least three of the four Liberals on the committee appear unconvinced electoral reform is even necessary and one is still making up his mind about a referendum. They've had 36 meetings and over a hundred witnesses, yet still take turns repeating bs rightwing Keep It Simple talking points about ballots the size of bedsheets and how complicated it would be for voters to rank several candidates/parties on a ballot instead of just one. 

Committee Liberals also complain that the members of the public who show up to public ERRE meetings are biased in favour of electoral reform. As if people unconcerned about being represented in government are going to make a special trip in to say 'I don't care about this'.

Last word goes to Conservative MP and ERRE member Gérard Deltell, speaking on electoral reform at the Quebec National Assembly on Sept. 27, 2011:

"We have almost 30 months before the next election. We have time to do what all the parties have always urged, that is, a proportional system.'

.

Does this poll make my electoral ass look big?

Apparently half of NDP voter respondents are either very or somewhat satisfied with our current First Past the Post electoral system - really? - but 71% of them are definitely or probably in favour of a referendum. Does this seem at all likely to you?

On Sept 28 I attended the travelling public Electoral Reform Committee in Vancouver. 

One of the witnesses was Mario Canseco, VP of InsightsWest, who presented the results of his company's Sept 14-16 weighted online survey of 1029 Canadians on electoral reform. The committee was given his brief but since then the questions and data behind the brief have been published online. It is not mentioned who commissioned the poll.

This was the big news at the time to the committee : Overall, nearly two-thirds of poll respondents are very or somewhat satisfied with keeping our electoral system the way it is and 68% definitely/probably want a referendum.

As there was no media present *yet again* at the committee, it's unlikely anyone will take a look at the survey, now being quoted online by referendum and FPtP fans with names like XXX the Deplorable. Here's the data info on the First-Past-the-Post question :

Let's leave aside for the moment whether First-Past-the-Post is accurately described here.

If I understand this data correctly, half of respondents who voted NDP in the 2015 election are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with First-Past-the-Post. How likely is that? Or that 72% of Liberals are? Or that only 9% of Canadians overall are very dissatisfied with a system in which just over half of their votes - 9,106,936 of them - were wasted.

Moving on to what electoral system should replace FPtP for the apparently only 22% of Canadians with any interest in doing so : 

It seems twice as many Conservatives (26% based on their vote in the 2015 election) are strongly in favour of Party-List PR than are their NDP (11%) and Liberal (12%) counterparts. Who knew? 

Notable that between 20% and 38% in the different categories were unable to give any opinion either positive or negative on the three alternative voting systems presented to them.

Meanwhile a whopping 71% of NDP respondents and 65% of Liberal respondents told the pollsters they are in favour of holding a nationwide referendum :

So how does Insights West recruit these respondents? According to their website, you sign up with their survey panel by email : 

"You can earn between $0.50 to $5 for some surveys, for others you will be entered into sweepstakes draws with chances to win gift cards from a variety of Canadian retailers."

At the ERRE meeting on Wednesday, Mr Canseco said the respondents are not advised ahead of time what survey they will be taking but that after it starts the different voting systems are explained to them. 

Mr Canseco is tweeting his survey online. I have tweeted my questions as to what I interpret as anomalies in his survey back at him but he has yet to respond. If any poll nerds out there can explain them to me, I'll enter your name in the Creekside sweepstakes draw.

The Electoral Reform Committee is running its own e-consultation with Canadians until this Friday at midnight EST. They put a background paper online if you want to brush up first. The survey takes 15 to 30 minutes and can be completed over several sessions if you prefer.  

.

Dear Jason Kenney and Scott Reid

Watching you two in the ERRE committee dragging your feet on implementing electoral reform, I'm reminded of your pioneering work arguing passionately and intelligently in favour of it in the HoC in 2001.

Here's you, Jason Kenney, deploring that "Canada is now the only multi-party advanced democracy in the world that has a system of voting designed in and for 16th-century England" and arguing in favour of "a greater reflection of the diversity and plurality of political views" : 

And you, Mr. Reid, you left no doubt as to your position on our current FPtP system :  

"I will start by making the objection that the system in Canada really is broken at this point" 

and called for "a special all-party committee to examine the merits of various models of proportional representation" :

All excellent points, Mr. Reid!
Three and a half hours later you were on your feet again making a pitch for the Single Transferable Vote System 

Presumably this past advocacy in favour of changing our voting system to some form of proportional representation explains why the only objection to it available to you now is to keep banging on about referenda instead.  

I ask the ERRE committee to enter Mr. Reid and Mr. Kenney's excellent arguments in favour of electoral reform into the current record.
.

5th Electoral Reform Committee meeting - JP Kingsley

in which the Conservatives only want to talk referendum and the Liberals mostly want to talk about online voting, which we aren't getting for the 2019 federal election, in part because the Liberals have not rolled back Fair Elections Act provisions that prevent Elections Canada from pilot testing it.

JP Kingsley gives his personal suggestion for a new combination electoral system - urban MMP and rural FPtP - and the CPC MPs launch the dismissive phrase "consultations in cafeterias" to refer to any discussions with Canadians about electoral reform that isn't a referendum.

Since May 2010, Kingsley, former Elections Canada CEO from 1990 - 2007, has been Chair of the Executive Advisory Committee of Dominion Voting, a Canadian company selling electronic voting machines and tabulators. In May 2010, Dominion bought the infamous Diebold Election Systems from Election Systems & Software. 
From 2007-2009, Kingsley was President & CEO of the Washington-based International Foundation for Electoral Systems, which "provides assistance and support for elections in new and emerging democracies" in 135 countries including Haiti, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, and Yemen.

Lest you think his position at Dominion Voting inclines Kingsley toward online voting for the next federal election, it does not. In a presumed response to Lib Ruby Sahota's comparison to online banking and Sherry Romanado's comment in the previous meeting that :

"I can order pizza online. On the day of the vote, it may be raining, I might be busy. Online voting gives me an option"

Kingsley, who thinks online voting is eventually inevitable and even necessary to engage the young and "differently abled" and voters not in their riding, said in his excellent opening remarks to the committee:

"Online voting. The analogy with online banking and purchasing I heard this morning is flawed. Banks hedge the risk from the person - a margin of error is acceptable against which they hedge. What margin of error is acceptable in elections?" 

The ERRE committee has not yet posted July minutes or transcripts so here's some notes on the Kingsley Q&A meantime : 

CPC Scott Reid : Referendum. He begins by quoting KIngsley from June : "You can only hold a referendum on a constitutional matter. Changing the electoral system is not a constitutional matter." Did you mean the Referendum Act would need to be changed to hold a referendum?
Kingsley : Yes, that's what I meant.
Reid : In 1992 you held a referendum 4 months after passing Referendum Act. Could you do it in 4 months again because Mayrand says he would need 6 months?
Kingsley : Easier then. Defers to Mayrand's 6 months.

NDP David Christopherson : Unlike Mayrand who is still in office, you can give opinions. Why should we move from comfort zone of FPtP to "something that more accurately describes the will of the people"?
Kingsley : "I can't think of a country that went with FPtP when installing a democracy because of its known difficulties. If you do not come out with a new system, then the people complaining about the system in place now will have to live with it."

Bloc Luc Theriault : More equitable state funding for small parties would address vote inequality.
Kingsley : We should return to previous system of $2 per vote per party annually, even if at $1.50 not $2. 
Theriault : Funding means smaller parties can make themselves heard in between election campaigns. 
Kingsley : My suggestion : Given size of Canada, remote vast rural ridings would keep FPtP to elect 40 to 60MPs. For urban ares, group 4 -5 current ridings and voters would choose their 4 or 5 MPs based on the vote. Everyone would vote for one candidate or one party. The party would be chosen by the new riding association from the grouped-together 4 or 5 ridings. To achieve gender parity in say 5 available seats, there would be 3 men and 3 women coordinated alternating man-woman-man-woman. Voters would vote for one man or one party - they would only have one vote. If 60% of people vote for Party A, they get 3 seats or 60%.

Elizabeth May : Given distortions we experienced under FPtP, do you believe our democracy will be improved when we get rid of it? 
Kingsley : Democracy will be improved when committee has done its work, when we have best system or least worst system as Shakespeare would have said. The process itself is important.
May : Power of PMO is unique to Canadian system. 
Kingsley : Concentration of power under Pierre E Trudeau was to ensure unity of direction, that ministers would not go contrary to what party wanted. That machinery over time created more authority of Prime Minister. Not directly related to issue but feeds into it.
Holding any referendum vote would require rewriting the outdated law but it was a good act re free broadcasting time - 1 1/2 hour to both sides. 

Lib Sherry Romanado : Simplicity of ballot, link between elector and elected, parties should be national coast to coast. Please elaborate.
Kingsley : Some parties are under-represented so there's bodies missing in caucus. In Quebec, eastern Canada there are fewer Conservatives than should be there. It's at caucus that national decisions are made for the rest of Canada - proportional or mixed proportional would address that but no system will be perfect.
Romanado : How would coast-to-coast parties affect intraparty competition?
Kingsley : Open list, choosing among candidates within the same party- electors rank within the same party which one they prefer. If only 4 to be elected in that riding, I would bust my proverbial to be among 1st four. There will be temptations but party discipline will address that. 
Romanado : I had 7 candidates in my riding and I benefitted from FPTP - that's the reality - but now I represent them all. 
Kingsley : With my suggestion, [ridings with several MPs] , after election, electors could choose who among those 4 or 5 they choose to take their issue to.

CPC Girard Deltell : Referendum. What is more important in consulting Canadians - a referendum or "townhall consultations in a cafeteria"?

Lib Ruby Sahota : Using compulsory attendance [not compulsory voting], would a new electoral system increase voter turnout?
Kingsley : I don't believe in compulsory voting, rather compulsory attendance. However "I don't know if 50% attendance at the polls is sufficient to lend legitimacy to a government."
Sahota : Twitter question : How much higher is voter turnout in countries with proportional representation?
Kingsley : One study by Prof Blais (sp?) found about 7%. I may be wrong. Might be marginal.
Sahota : Simplicity of ballot to increase voter turnout.
Kingsley : Youth are not voting. 58% turnout in last election; 39% in one before. Failure to engage. If we are to keep voluntary attendance at polls, we must do better at getting across *why* to vote. They don'y watch tv; why do we still do tv?

NDP Alexandre Boulerice : Public education needed. People think they are voting for a PM.
Kingsley : Must listen to Canadians. Social networks will create snowball effect. Canadians capable of understanding what democracy is about. I don't endorse any particular system but whatever you come up with must maintain link between MP and community.

CPC Blake Richards : Your suggestion of two systems - one urban, one rural - why is that a good system? 
Kingsley : People in rural areas accustomed to link with elected MP; a proportional system represents more difficulty for them because geography. 

Lib John Aldag : How do independents fit in to any new system?
Kingsley : A problem internationally with some PR systems but not mixed member. Chances of being elected the same as they are right now - low.
Aldag : Online voting. Mayrand not seeing it for 2019. When then?
Kingsley : Both later and faster than we think. All-pervasive technology must asssure integrity of elector identification. Mayrand said not in 2019 because he needs permission from House and Senate to even think about it never mind test pilot it; used to be just from PROC.
Aldag : Do you have preferred approach for a pilot test for say people with disabilities? How can we phase it in?
Mayrand : Could not apply to all Canadians - too broad a test. Could try people with "differing abilities" or mobility issues or a few ridings. Could then check to see how well we performed.
Aldag : What margin of error is acceptable?
Kingsley : Canadians will say if we have online voting - must be 0% error.

End of first round questioning. Might get to second round later if there is any interest in this first round.
.

4th Electoral Reform Committee - Mayrand

Testimony of Elections Canada CEO Marc Mayrand July 7  
on "Viable alternative voting systems to replace First Past the Post and examination of mandatory and online voting" 

Shorter : A one-off referendum would cost $300M, Mayrand not worried about getting election system changes and/or possible referendum done in time for 2019 election if May 2017 deadline, as promised, is his starter date. 
Mayrand, it should be mentioned, is retiring in December so it won't be him dealing with it.

Alternating CPC & Lib MP questions: Referendum, online voting, referendum, online voting, referendum.
The dominance of the referendum question from the CPCs continues as expected, but the emphasis on online voting from the Libs is a surprise, given Mayrand has already said it won't be an option for the 2019 election.

Longer, much much much longer :-) ...

As CEO, Mayrand's role is to administer Canada Elections Act and Referendum Act and implement readjustment of federal elections boundaries.
Next report on suggested legislated changes to be submitted to PROC in September.
"Very short timeline" to get changes in place for next election in 2019.
He will not be addressing pros and cons of various voting systems.
Government has committed to have legislation in place in May 2017 "which I am comfortable with"
Mayrand reiterated his remarks to PROC from April. Full statement here :

1)Some systems may require redistribution of electoral boundaries. Current legal framework does not allow for redistribution except after the decennial census - current boundaries are supposed to be in place till 2023 - and also does not allow for multi-member seats. A change in voting system requiring redistribution will require enabling legislation. Last redistribution exercise took 26 months.

2) Redistribution may make it difficult to get results published on election night.  Canadians expect quick results so electronic tabulation may be required at all polling places to continue this tradition.

3) Redistribution may impact political financing. 

4) Public education on new system and election officers will need prepping.

Online voting and mandatory voting.
Internet voting would remove barriers but Canadians must trust integrity and secrecy of the vote. Online voting will not be an option in 2019. 
23 countries have national mandatory voting. Sanctions or incentives? 

Two rounds of five minutes each for MPs to ask questions :

Lib John Aldag : Your role in public education?
Mayrand : Should start one year in advance of election. His current mandate under Fair Elections Act passed by Cons in 2014 restricts his public education role to only those under 18 years of age. 

So, Libs, how about it? Think you might roll back Fair Elections Act to let the CEO of Elections Canada explain the new system - whatever it is - to Canadians for a year before the 2019 election?

CPC Scott Reid : Can we get new legislation through both the House and the Senate by May 2017? At what point after that does new system become impossible to implement? What is the "drop dead rate"?
Mayrand : At least two years.
Reid : Still six months to prepare referendum? When does 6 months start?
Mayrand : Yes, six months. Starts when we can tell it's going to happen. Have started looking into referendum change.

NDP Boulerice : 26 months? Why don't people vote?
Mayrand : Yes. 40% are busy/not in riding, 45% not interested in politics, 8% cite administrative barriers.
Boulerice : Have any countries moved from another system to FPtP?
Mayrand : Not as far as I know.

Elizabeth May : Fair Elections Act/Bill C-23 restricts your actions. Could you provide committee with a list of what you'll need for a new system? And explain delayed election results.
Mayrand : In Australia, preferential ballots takes time to compute election results 
May : How much would a one-off referendum cost?
Mayrand : Estimate is $300M
May : Would regrouping existing ridings into one be a simpler exercise?
Mayrand : Will require public consultation but won't cut down the time required much.

Lib Ruby Sahota : How can we make voting more accessible?
Mayrand : Online voting - 3.5M electors have some form of disability. Will recommend party reimbursement for making voting more accessible.
Sahota : If banking and million dollar deals are done online, why not voting?

CPC Gerard Deltell : Could preferential voting system as recommended by Stephane Dion be made understandable to Canadians in 26 months?  ... wait for it ... wait for it ... What steps does a referendum entail?
Mayrand : Entails drafting the question, examining materials since 1992 [last referendum], training manuals for 255,000 election workers, adapting current systems, contracts. 
DelTell : Won't that take more than 6 months?
Mayrand : 6 months minimum.

Lib Sherry Romanado : Tech for improving voting. Humans make mistakes counting ballots. Online voting - could do it like tax returns but with option of polling stations..
Mayrand : Online voting will not likely replace paper ballots.  25% of voters prefer not to vote on polling day and that number is increasing.
Romanado : Why not leave that up to Canadians? I can order pizza online. On the day of the vote, it may be raining, I might be busy. Online voting gives me an option.
Mayrand : Security is an issue. Confidentiality. Secrecy. Reliability. Integrity. Risk of online services is to provider. Also we lack a universal authentification system in Canada.

NDP Chris Christopherson : Mandatory and online voting discussion distracts from discussing electoral reform. Send to PROC.

CPC Blake Richards : Referendum

Lib Matt deCourcey: Mandatory and online voting part of this committee's mandate. Possibility of augmenting EC role re the bringing in the young.
Mayrand : We could register students before they are 18 for when they turn of age. Civic education means more likely to vote.

CPC Scott Reid : Government is trying to run out the clock so there will not be time for both a REFERENDUM and time to implement a new system. Minister Maryam Monsef refuses to either endorse or refuse a REFERENDUM while refusing to do what is necessary to allow a REFERENDUM. How to stop the REFERENDUM deadline from going by silently in the 6 months plus 26 months scenario?

NDP David Christopherson: Legally a referendum cannot be held at the same time as an election. 
Mayrand : Correct.
Christopherson : Must be stand-alone. You need marching orders by May 2017 to meet deadline, so if referendum was May 1st, that puts us around Dec 2016 this year to give you time enough. So committee must give you a total package by Dec 16 to trigger a referendum that still gives you time of 27 months to implement reform.
Mayrand: Can hold referendum under current legislation. Expecting your report in December. 

Bloc Theriault : [I never know what the hell he's on about .... oh, wait ... ] REFERENDUM and we should take our time to do this right.

May : Re online voting, there's a social cohesion benefit to actually gathering to vote.

May reads twitter question from David McLaughlin, former chief of staff to Jim Flaherty: If the Referendum Act was changed to allow a referendum to be held alongside a federal election, how much would it cost then? 

Mayrand : Only “marginally” more expensive.

May reads another Twitter question : Can all referendum ads be subject to fact-checking or fines? 

Mayrand : Not his responsibility - public policy matter.

May : If committee decision is MMP, how about returning to 2011 boundaries - go back to 308 ridings and add 30 seats for prop rep? 

Mayrand says interesting but would have to think about it.

Lib Sherry Romanado: Online voting. Outreach for seniors and students and homebound.

As EC CEO you aren't allowed to educate people over 18 but what can we 338 MPs do?

Mayrand : Aside from mending the legislation? 

Yes, once again, how about it Libs? How about allowing Elections Canada to do voter outreach and education again?

CPC Gerard Deltell : Will potential disputes over new electoral boundaries slow things up?

Mayrand : Independent commissions decide boundaries, not EC.

Deltell : So you are "a hostage" of these commissions. We should take our time to do this right.

Lib Ruby Sahota : Can you educate new Canadians about our electoral process?

Mayrand : We publish info in 35 languages. We try to recruit EC personnel that reflects diversity of riding. First generation Canadians have lower turnout but it picks up with next generation.

Sahota : What are pitfalls of different systems, like taking too long to count ballots?

Mayrand : Most people see elections as marking a ballot, not understanding the system. Changing from a simple system to something more - you should not underestimate the level of educating people required to even start a discussion.

NDP Boulerice : Is increasing the vote part of your mission?

Mayrand : "It has been clearly laid out it wasn't Elections Canada's role to do so."

Boulerice : Scottish model - 2/3 elected by FPtP; remaining third appointed by list. Urban ridings could be merged; single ridings on large land masses. 

Mayrand : Difficult to compare Scotland with Canada because of size of Canada.

Boulerice : How can we increase % of women and minorities? A list system could have rules mandating 50% of women.

CPC Blake Richards : Timelines for referendum and changes to the system - December report will start it? When is the "drop dead rate" for the government calling a referendum plus time for resdistribution?

Mayrand : Dec. 1st is date of report from this committee and next May is date for legislation. If by next spring there is nothing on the table, right there it tells me I won't see anything before the end of 2018. That means January 2019 and that means we're out of it. 

Lib John Aldag :  Last thoughts? 

Mayrand : Aging demographic. Important for Elections Canada to be able to provide service for homebound. I have exhausted what I'm able to do under current legislation. I need your support on changing legislation to prevent poll line-ups. 

Aldag : Aboriginal engagement?

Mayrand : Progressively closing the gap with the rest of the population but great disparities in participation across the country.

Aldag :  What is #1 Canadian challenge or attribute to designing a system?

Mayrand : Canadians have an extremely high level of trust in their elections system. Once you lose it, it's very difficult to regain. Be extremely careful in doing anything that may impact the trust of Canadians.

ERRE meeting #4

.

3rd Electoral Reform Committee meeting

Maryam Monsef, Minister of Democratic Institutions, spoke for 15 minutes and answered questions.  

Monsef acknowledges meeting taking place on traditional Algonquin territory, calls for collaboration, hopes committee will work towards more than just submitting five reports representing their respective party's views.

Gives her personal perspective on why we should move beyond FPtP. FPtP is 19th century system not designed for multi-party system. We need stronger link between will of voters and election results. Since 1960 we've had 10 elections giving majority results but only in one in 1984 did winning party receive more than 50% of the vote. This leads to lower voter turnout because of feeling their vote doesn't count.

FPtP tends to favour parties with regional rather than national appeal. 

In last election less that 40% of MPs were elected by majority of constituents, including herself, while 63% of Canadians voted for parties advocating alternative to FPtP.  So what type of system would best replace FPtP while recognizing that no one system is perfect.

Government not prepared to proceed without broad support, must reach Canadians disengaged from the electoral system. In 2016, facebook and twitter are primary tools for engagement, cannot be overlooked [Take that, Jason Kenney, not here because he's currently announcing his Unite the Right campaign for Alberta]. 

She brings up online and mandatory voting as two means of increasing participation.

She is not in favour of a referendum - they do not lend themselves to deciding complex issues and less than half of Canadians have participated in recent ones.

Stascan study after 2011 election : Under 45s, high school grads, single, unemployed, immigrants, renters, and rurals vote in lower numbers than over 45s, uni/college grads, married, employed, Canadian-born, home owners, and urbans.

A referendum would reflect these numbers, an incomplete picture of Canadians.

Previous electoral changes done without a referendum : secret ballot in 1874, began to extend voting to women in 1918, Office of Chief Electoral in 1920, FN get vote in 1960, 18 year olds get vote in 1970.  In fact all previous electoral changes have been done without a referendum.

Questions 

All CPC MPs - Scott Reid, Gerald Deltell, and Blake Richards sitting in for Jason Kenney -restricted their questions entirely to whether she would accept or put in place the necessary mechanisms to hold a referendum. Referendum, referendum, referendum. Monsef answered CPC Scott Reid that if that was what listening to Canadians and a consensus on the committee recommended, then "It would be incumbent upon me and the government to take it seriously".

Scott Reid tries again, badly wants a yes or no. She doesn't give him one.

He is particularly agitated that a referendum becomes impossible if it is not aligned with the Elections Act between when the committee winds up in December and the next election in October 2019. I'm not sure where this sense of urgency originates. Marc Mayrand told PROC in May :"Six months minimum to set up a national referendum" .. because legislation on referendums has not been updated since 1992. 

NDP David Christopherson says CPC is for FPtP, NDP is for PR, and Trudeau's favoured system is "alternate ranked voting system" plus PCO just hired ranked ballot proponent Derek Alton, so what does Monsef's pledge of wide-open options really mean?

We're not a monolith, says Monsef : 

"We haven't made up our mind about any given system.... This isn't about us; this isn't about our parties. This is about Canadians - their electoral system. ...We don't do hiring for the PCO."   

Luc Theriault, Bloc, is concerned Monsef's dept has a budget of $10.7M to conduct parallel research to the committee which only has $300K. Monsef explained Board of Internal Economy sets budget and the dept money is to reach out to people not traditionally engaged with the process.
Did he just also make a case for holding a referendum? I think he did. That shifts the committee dynamics a bit.

Elizabeth May : Liberal Speech from the Throne promised "In order to make sure every vote counts, 2015 will be the last election held under FPtP. I intend to hold you to that promise." She notes the first parliamentary committee to study PR to replace FPtP was in 1921, and another in 1937. Plus "1970 was the first time ever the identity of the candidate became subservient to the name of their party with the party named next to candidate on the ballot."

May says media focus is more on attacking the process to get rid of FPtP than on why we need to get rid of it. Yup, she's got that right, as was borne out by media questions to Monsef after she left committee. Referendum, referendum, referendum. 

May asks if majority Liberal government is willing to choose a voting system that goes against their own self-interest. 
"Will you give us your word that you will fight for whatever this committee recommends?"

Monsef does not answer yes, says she looks forward to their report. Huh. 

May reads 2 questions from twitter, one about the skewed "truth in advertizing"surrounding this debate. Monsef says debate must be non-partisan and she is counting on the good work of "our free and independent press" to present the issues fairly.   Huh.

Monsef walked out of the committee 15 minutes later to a scrum of seven questions from "our free and independent press". Five were about holding a referendum and whether or not time was running out to have one.

3rd ERRE Meeting 
.