Put 130 North Vancouverites in a room to talk about changing Canada’s electoral system and you’ll probably get just as many opinions as to how we should do it.
That pluralism was on display for Liberal MP Jonathan Wilkinson’s town hall meeting on democratic reform Monday night.
After a brief primer by UBC political science professor Gerald Baier, attendees were asked to break into groups and start forming the discussion points that will eventually inform an all-party parliamentary committee in Ottawa on what changes to the electoral system should be introduced in time for the next federal election.
Among those who showed, there were at least two former North Vancouver MPs and one also-ran from the 2015 election.
Attendees were first asked to list what values should be prioritized in the electoral system, namely whether it should emphasize proportionality, representation at the local constituency level, stability of governments, representation of Canada’s different regions, how much power the parties should have, the ability to attract diverse candidates, whether the system should encourage career politicians or whether the ballot should accommodate the complex preferences a voter may have beyond one simple X.
The idea being, Baier said, that each electoral system up for consideration has strengths and trade-offs, depending on what we most want to see in the outcome.
The top democratic values our system should reflect, as reflected by feedback gathered at Monday’s meeting, were proportionality and local representation, two forces that are difficult to reconcile, Wilkinson noted.
A strictly proportional representation system, for example, would ensure the makeup of Parliament matches very closely the popular vote and it would virtually do away with so-called “false majorities,” or when a party controls the House of Commons without a majority of support at the ballot box. But, that could also come at the cost of local representation with the parties themselves deciding who would occupy the seats in Parliament, not constituents. And the PR system could also undermine the stability of Canadian governments, as capturing the majority of voters rarely happens in multi-party democracies like ours.
Other options on the table include the single transferable vote, which would divide the country up into boundaries represented by several MPs elected on a PR basis; alternative voting, which could take the form of runoff elections or ranked ballots, allowing voters to express their wishes in a best case scenario, or, if necessary, the next best thing.
A majority of those who turned out for Monday’s meeting favoured the mixed member proportional system, which would see the House of Commons include seats for MPs elected under the current system as well as under proportional representation.
Single transferable vote, the same system British Columbians voted down by 60 per cent in the 2009 referendum, appeared to be the runner up.
Still, a handful remained in the if-it-ain’t-broke crowd, arguing the first-past-the-post system Canada has used for the last 150 years has served us well enough.
Another common theme: The systems were too complicated to be adequately explained in such a short town hall meeting, suggesting Canadians have a fair bit of civics homework to do before consultations on electoral reform have wrapped on Oct. 7. Anyone can still submit formal input for the committee at www.canada.ca/en/campaign/electoral-reform.html.
Though they weren’t explicitly on the meeting’s agenda, there were also several calls to include an emphasis on increasing voter turnout, including possible mandatory voting, as well as an end to whipped votes in parliament, ensuring MPs may vote their conscience.
North Shore residents are also invited to learn and engage with democratic reform at events hosted by North Shore Community Resources on Saturday Sept. 17 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the North Vancouver City Library and Thursday Sept. 22, from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Capilano University.
