In New Zealand during the 1980s, both major parties had pledged to support electoral reform when in opposition, only to back away from the commitment when in power. The public opinion backlash, however, finally forced both parties to commit to a referendum process during the 1990 election.

If Canada’s political parties continue to be seen as part of the problem rather than leaders in finding the solution, Canadian voters are just as likely to lash out, as did the New Zealanders. Fortunately, Canada still has ample opportunity to work from a positive, rather than negative, starting point.

The ideal process would see the federal government, with support from the other parliamentary parties, taking the initiative. With guidance from an all-party parliamentary committee, the federal government could announce and launch a civic deliberation process to reform the voting system as step one in building a new Canadian democracy.

All-party support of the deliberation process and a commitment to let citizens make a final binding decision on the best voting system for Canada would help demonstrate the non-partisan nature of the exercise.

This government-initiated process is the ideal. But if the government and other parliamentary parties are not prepared to act on their own, then Canadian citizens should be given the opportunity to provide clear direction to the government. This could be done through a referendum in which voters vote for or against the following statement.

Be it resolved that the Government of Canada and all other Parliamentary parties shall initiate a public consultation on instituting a more proportional voting system and provide Canadians with a referendum process to choose the best voting system.

While this would give citizens the ability to initiate the process, the opportunity would be lost for the federal government and other parliamentary parties to gain the goodwill from taking the initiative.

The civic engagement process will require a leadership body that is arm’s length from Parliament and the parties.

The traditional approach would be the appointment of a royal commission on voting reform. The commission, with the assistance of professional staff, would be charged with: 1) developing voting system assessment criteria, 2) reviewing alternative voting systems that would not require constitutional change, 3) narrowing down the possibilities to the two most suitable alternatives for Canada, 4) providing descriptions of how these systems would work in Canada, and 5) possibly concluding with a recommendation on the best system.

If this approach were taken, the appointment of highly respected commissioners would be critical to building public confidence in the validity of the exercise. The commissioners would have to be perceived as standing above partisanship and be capable of representing the interests and concerns of a wide range of Canadians.

Is that possible? The New Zealand royal commission did not include any current or former MPs and, according to the former chair, did not include anyone with a strong view on any particular voting system. Nonetheless, critics still charged that the Minister of Justice stacked the commission to obtain the results he wanted, an inevitable outcome or suspicion when any partisan body tries to appoint a non-partisan body.[1]

Given the extraordinary need to avoid the reality or perception of partisanship or partisan interference, another approach, which may soon be pioneered in British Columbia, deserves consideration. Premier Gordon Campbell has pledged to convene a citizens’ assembly on electoral reform. While a detailed plan is yet to be tabled, a process similar to that used for jury selection would be adapted to appoint citizens to the assembly.[2] Given that a citizens’ assembly has never been used for such a purpose, arguments can be made for a relatively small body of 12 to 18 people (making it more a “citizens’ commission”) or a larger assembly of 50 to 100 people, or more.

Such a citizens’ assembly could also work in partnership with a royal commission or other fact-finding body. In this case, the assembly could review the work of the commission and be empowered to either co-sign the final report, providing an element of additional credibility to the recommendations, or else offer an alternative “citizens’ report” with alternative recommendations.

Political scientists Matthew Mendelsohn and Andrew Parkin have argued for another variation of this general approach.[3] They argue for the use of a citizens’ forum on electoral reform, which would provide direction to a commission of inquiry. The commission would handle the professional research tasks related to examining alternative voting systems that would be most suitable for Canada. The citizens’ forum would set the mandate for the commission, review and debate its findings, and approve the options to be put to voters in a referendum. Citing the Australian people’s convention on the future of the monarchy as a model, the authors conceive of a citizens’ forum comprised of appointed party representatives and elected citizens’ representatives.

Any of these approaches – the royal commission, citizens’ assembly and/or citizens’ forum – or combination can be used to support a credible and successful process, as long as objectivity and non-partisanship are the driving forces in the formation and management of the bodies. The leadership body, in whatever form it takes, must also be provided with an adequate budget to hire the necessary professional and administrative staff.

[For the remainder of this paper, the term “commission/assembly” will be used to denote the leadership body for the citizen engagement process.]

In addition to the leadership provided by the commission/assembly, a successful citizen engagement process will require support from a number of bodies, each with an important contributing role.

Once the process begins, the first task for the commission/assembly will be the identification of the criteria for assessing alternative voting systems. While many systems have been developed by other nations, it is unlikely any could be brought into the Canadian political environment without modifications.

Electoral system expert Douglas Amy states, “you do not have to develop this set of criteria from scratch. Political scientists, politicians and political activists have spent a great deal of time thinking about what makes for a good voting system. Somewhat surprisingly, some consensus exists on the criteria for a good voting system. Virtually everyone agrees, for instance, that a good system should promote majority rule, fair representation, high voter turnout, and stable government.”[4]

The New Zealand Royal Commission applied ten criteria to compare various systems. The key criteria related to voter turnout, effective and appropriate representation, and an effective government, parliament and parties.[5]

The Jenkins Commission in the UK identified a set of criteria for assessing voting systems. Those general criteria have been adopted and promoted by two Canadian electoral reform groups: Fair Voting BC and Fair Vote Canada. The criteria are: 1) broad proportionality – party seats should be reflective of the proportion of popular votes received; 2) extended voter choice – voters should have a reasonable range of parties from which to choose and be able to cast positive and effective votes for the parties of their choice; 3) stable and responsive government – the voting system should support good government; and 4) geographic linkage – the system should have some aspect of linkage between elected representatives and geographic constituencies.

While there are many ways of wording the specific criteria or principles, the two key components must relate to fair representation (or proportionality) and accountability.

When developing made-in-Canada alternatives, one additional criterion would be critical. The new system should not require constitutional change, something that would surely derail any electoral change process.

Having finalized the assessment criteria, the commission/assembly can begin its fact-finding work, which should be limited to a six-month period, given that extensive information is readily available from policy institutes, academics and the Law Commission of Canada. The commission/assembly should invite submissions and presentations from the experts in Canada’s policy institutes, universities and electoral reform groups to help with the review and assessment of various voting systems.

The fact-finding process would culminate with the publication of a report outlining: 1) the problems with the current system, 2) the criteria for a new system, 3) the general types of alternative voting systems, 4) examples of how the two best alternatives might work in Canada and, if possible, 5) a recommendation on which of those alternatives the commission/assembly finds preferable.

1. The Hon. Sir John Wallace QC, p. 3.

2. How might a process similar to jury selection be adapted? Elections Canada, with assistance from market research firms, could develop a list of several hundred nominees representing a valid demographic and regional cross section of Canadians. The list would then be screened to ensure people were: 1) reasonably familiar with and interested in the federal political process and 2) available to carry out the duties of the assembly (attending assembly meetings and related public events). The Chief Electoral Officer could then nominate a list of assembly members and alternates to be reviewed by an all-party committee and then appointed by Parliament.

3. Matthew Mendelsohn, Andrew Parkin, with Alex Van Kralingen, “Getting from Here to There: A Process for Electoral Reform in Canada”, Policy Options, July/August 2001, p. 59. Matthew Mendelsohn is an associate professor in the Political Studies Department at Queen’s University. Andrew Parkin is an assistant director at the Centre for Research and Information on Canada. Alex Van Kralingen is a law student at the University of Toronto.

4. Douglas Amy, Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting Systems, Praeger, 2000, p. 12.

5. Rod Donald, MP, MMP in Action: A Great Leap Forward for Democracy?, speech notes June 1999, commenting on the electoral reform process in New Zealand.