Having concluded the fact-finding stage and issued its report, the commission/assembly could now begin the civic deliberation process that would culminate with Canadians choosing the best voting system for Canada. The steps in the process would be:

1. production of plain language educational materials and web site
2. media partnership development
3. consultation with civil society groups
4. public forums for direct citizen participation
5. deliberative polling events
6. first referendum: choosing the preferred alternative
7. second referendum: choosing between the preferred alternative and the status quo

The latter two steps will be covered in the Part 5: Citizen Decision-Making.

Most materials on voting systems are produced by and for experts in policy-making or academic positions. To successfully engage a broad spectrum of citizens in the process, the issue will have to be framed to connect with real-life concerns of Canadians and explained in plain language materials.

Unlike health care, the environment, education, and the economy, electoral reform is seldom identified as a major political issue in public opinion surveys. Most Canadians, while expressing deep frustration and cynicism with government, parties and politics, have yet to understand how the voting system drives the nature of politics in a representative democracy. Relatively few are aware that other types of voting systems can create more representative and accountable governments, and provide different incentives for parties.

How can this issue be framed to effectively reach the general public?[1] Electoral reform groups have often focused on the ideas of empowered citizenship and accountable government. When every vote counts, every voice will be heard. When every voice is heard, they (politicians) will have to keep their word. Fair voting means fair government.

Another approach has been to frame the issue in terms of fair play. Democracy should provide a level playing field for all citizens. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, but everyone deserves a fair chance. A fair voting system creates a level playing field for representative democracy.

There will be no single slogan or phrase that fully captures the importance of the issue for all Canadians. When materials are developed, the messages should be simplified as much as possible, and tied back to immediate issues or concerns of the various audiences. Some of the questions that might be addressed include:

• How does the voting system drive the nature of politics in Canada?
• How do the current concerns of Canadians relate to the voting system?
• What are the problems associated with our current voting system?
• What other types of voting systems are used by major democracies?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of these other systems?
• On what principles should we base a new Canadian voting system?
• How would other voting systems work in Canada?

In addition to general materials, information may also be tailored for targeted groups, such as young people, new citizens, visible minorities, women, aboriginal communities and so on.

Formats should include booklets, video and CD ROMs. Well-known celebrities could be engaged to host videos, educational CD ROMs and web site presentations.

A high quality, state-of-the-art web site will be essential to the citizen engagement process. The web site could show examples of other nations’ voting systems; provide interactive demonstrations of how different voting systems deliver different results; and host discussion groups on related issues.

In addition, the site could have classroom materials for teachers to download. For example, some electoral reform groups have developed classroom exercises where students can vote on the toppings for a pizza order, using various voting systems, and then discuss how the different systems produce different outcomes.

The commission/assembly should make a special effort to formally engage the public and commercial media as partners in the civic deliberation process.

While the Canadian media do not have an extensive history of engaging citizens in civic deliberation (outside of special events, such as elections), there has been one particularly interesting recent initiative. Earlier this year, Toronto Star publisher John Honderich announced his paper “is launching a crusade for a new deal for cities. Over the next year, we will write stories outlining the problems and presenting solutions. We will seek out experts. We will conduct public forums. We will press the candidates…We will push Ottawa to take up this issue.”[2] True to his word, The Star has devoted considerable space to an ongoing civic discussion – involving the experts, politicians and average citizens.

A national crusade to rebuild Canada’s democracy, starting with a fair voting system, should be an equally worthy subject for one or more major media to embrace. The likelihood of developing a lively, informed civic discussion and debate would be greatly boosted if CBC, CTV, the Globe and Mail, the National Post and/or Macleans joined the effort to engage citizens to bring fair voting and true representative democracy to Canada. CBC in particular, as the nation’s public broadcasting company, should be contacted to determine the possibility of partnerships for ongoing special reports and sponsorship of specific public events, for example community forums or the deliberative polling events (see details below).

While a general civic engagement process must appreciate that not all citizens are affiliated with or relate to civil society organizations, a national consultation process can be greatly facilitated by groups with organized constituencies.

Building on the prior work of the Law Commission of Canada, the commission/assembly should convene a national conference or series of regional meetings with leaders of major membership associations, constituency organizations and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to discuss their potential role in a national civic deliberation process.

These groups should be asked to consider: 1) incorporating the fair voting deliberation in their internal communication/education materials, 2) providing time and space at major events, conventions and conferences, and 3) co-sponsoring regional and/or national public forums.

Given that these organizations have direct and ongoing communication with millions of Canadians through their newsletters and annual events, the commission/assembly may find it very cost-effective to use these channels to disseminate information about the civic deliberation process. Perhaps the commission/assembly could negotiate the inclusion of customized or targeted public engagement inserts in their newsletters or mailings.

Having developed materials, held preliminary meetings with media and civil society groups, the civic consultation process should ready for direct citizen engagement.

The consultation process should involve a cross-country series of hearings, forums and other events held or sponsored by the commission/assembly. The events should be held in at least one major urban centre in each province or region, maximizing the opportunities for information sharing, deliberation with and among citizens and representatives of civil society groups.

The general process for the cross-country engagement process might be as follows. The schedule for dates and places would be set six months in advance. When the schedule is determined, the commission/assembly staff would begin identifying other institutions, organizations and local media that would be interested in co-sponsoring or working in partnership on the civic engagement process in their particular region.

The events themselves may take place over a weeklong period. For example, the week might begin with a day devoted to a detailed presentation by commission/assembly staff on their research findings. The second day could feature public debates or presentations by experts, advocates and/or electoral reform groups. The third day may focus on a town hall meeting sponsored and broadcast by local media [see next section for more detail]. The fourth day might revolve around academic or campus-based events. The fifth and final day could be devoted to public hearings, where the commission/assembly would hear presentations or statements from citizens or representatives of organizations.

A parallel engagement initiative might focus exclusively on secondary school and university students. Schools could be invited to send delegates to a regional youth convention or student congress, at which students (having been provided with materials in advance) would discuss, debate and vote upon the best voting system for Canada. This focused initiative may also help attract media coverage and/or other sponsors.

Within the mix of approaches that can be used to engage citizens, electronically assisted town hall meetings should be seriously considered. Traditional town hall meetings suffer from a number of shortcomings. Only highly engaged citizens tend to participate. The participants are often self-selected and not representative of the diversity of viewpoints. A few loud and aggressive participants can dominate the event. Many individual participants do not see any value or impact from their participation.

With the development of wireless computer network technology and group decision-making software, a new style of town meeting can be convened. For example, AmericaSpeaks, a U.S.-based non-profit organization, has worked with municipal governments and other agencies to develop and manage large-scale town meetings and citizen engagement events, in some cases with thousands of on-site participants. Every participant is part of a table discussion group. Each table is connected to a computer network so issues and questions can be easily forwarded to the meeting leaders and votes can be taken with results instantly projected for the group to review and discuss. Voting results can be broken down to show how group thinking is evolving and whether different types of participants are converging or diverging in their thinking. Likewise, as results suggest new questions or issues, these can be referred back to participants for further deliberation and feedback.

This new approach to town hall meetings may offer an ideal approach to engaging citizens in a learning and deliberation process on voting system reform.

A related, but more sophisticated form of engagement is deliberative polling. The traditional means for assessing the views of a valid cross-section of citizens is through public opinion polling, a process that is hindered by a number of shortcomings. The non-response rates on polls are often high. Survey results incorporate quick top-of-mind responses, often from uniformed respondents, who may not have had the opportunity to engage in thoughtful discussions with people holding other viewpoints.

To address the shortcomings of traditional public opinion polling, political scientist James Fishkin developed the methodology of Deliberative Opinion Polling.[3] DOP brings together a statistically valid sample of citizens to engage in a group learning session, with information provided in an objective manner.

The participants are given an opportunity to deliberate among themselves – exchanging views, debating the issues. The attitudes of the participants are measured before and after the exercise to illustrate how public opinion might shift if all citizens were given an opportunity to study the issues and engage in civic deliberation.

The difference between deliberative polling and town meetings is often overlooked and is worth emphasizing. Unlike town meetings, deliberative polling events are based on a participant group that is a valid, or reasonably valid, cross section of the general public.

As part of the public consultation, the commission/assembly should hold or co-sponsor deliberative polling events in each region of the country, perhaps co-sponsored by other non-partisan institutes and/or local or national media. These events could make use of the wireless networks and decision-making software now being used in electronic town meetings.

While deliberative polling requires significant financial resources to bring together a representative sample of participants, this process of direct engagement would be ideally suited and complementary to the other citizen engagement initiatives in this process. In fact, deliberative polling may be the most useful and valid form of citizen engagement the commission/assembly could organize.

1. The Law Commission of Canada hosted a forum for representatives of non-governmental organizations in April 2002. One topic of discussion was how this issue could be framed for public discussion.

2. John Honderich, “Canada has an urban crisis”, Toronto Star editorial, January 12, 2002.

3. James Fishkin, The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy, Yale University Press, 1995.