If Referendum Decides Electoral Reform, It Must Be Done Right | HuffPost

This HuffPost Canada page is maintained as part of an online archive.

In a recent opinion editorial, Conservative Party Interim Leader Rona Ambrose said that we cannot have electoral reform without a referendum. The bigger picture is about implementing a substantive framework of public engagement, with multiple, ongoing points of entry into political decision-making structures.

By

PhD Candidate at York University

PhD Candidate at York University

This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

In a recent opinion editorial, Conservative Party Interim Leader Rona Ambrose said that we cannot have electoral reform without a referendum.

A genuine claim to the use of a referendum cannot strictly appeal to convention or populism that demands the consent of "the people." The relationship between referendums and democracy is a contingent one. In some cases referendums are explicitly used for political gains. In other cases they are actively used as part of a broader process of public participation. In the end, the bigger picture is about implementing a substantive framework of public engagement, with multiple, ongoing points of entry into political decision-making structures.

Experts have been debating in witness hearings about whether or not we can have electoral reform by legislative fiat. Given that particular areas of the British North America Act imply the electoral system can be altered by the party in power, it calls in to question why the Conservatives when given the chance didn't jump at the opportunity. Perhaps the greater force of their argument is that politics has played into electoral reform historically; changing or not changing the model is often more about political maneuvering than a genuine desire for a fairer electoral system.

Months into public debate and yet we are left without a serious discussion of what a good referendum process looks like.

Detractors, whether or not they are reluctant to see proportional or alternative representation in place, have been very vocal about making sure we have a referendum to decide its fate. This includes the debate about the precedent set by other provinces using the referendum to determine electoral reform, and the moral imperative to have it because it satisfies a preamble of democracy. In the latter camp, referendums are considered the direct will of the people. Rather than have politicians determine if electoral reform should move forward, people should.

Months into public debate and yet we are left without a serious discussion of what a good referendum process looks like. In the instance that a referendum is selected to determine the outcome of national electoral reform, it may be too late to ensure it is less about making the outcome more palatable to partisans rather than a truly substantive deliberative exercise.

The present debate has failed to go beyond the simple statement that we need a referendum because other countries have done it. What a 'good' referendum process consists of, not simply that we need one, is a far more nuanced topic that even academics in the public eye have yet to address.

The quality of a referendum is discerned by how inclusive it is of a wide range of actors coming together at various stages of negotiation. This means that simply having a referendum as a vessel to solicit particular support for a desired outcome -- "Yes" or "No" -- places an inappropriate emphasis on the final vote, rather than preparatory phases leading up to it.

Comparative literature indicates that referendums may enhance the democratic quality of electoral and legislative institutions. For example, compelling aspects of the processes applied in Swiss Cantons and federally, offer citizens the recurring opportunity to initiate a referendum, including agenda-setting control mechanisms. This is part of a broader attempt to provide citizens with the right to challenge political elites on unpopular legislation, as Adrian Vatter points out in "Consensus and Direct Democracy: Conceptual and Empirical Linkages."

Countries that reduce hurdles have a better chance of seeing referendums evolve into routine practice. Even then, referendums alone are not guaranteed to enhance democratic processes, and they do not automatically lead to increased and informed engagement, according to Silvano Moeckli's "Direct Democracy and Political Participation from a Cross-National Perspective."

It becomes paradoxical to claim "the people" have spoken when sizeable portions of the populace have not participated.

There must be measures in place to ensure that the process does not end up like many other referendums where the public is unaware. It becomes paradoxical to claim "the people" have spoken when sizeable portions of the populace have not participated. There will need to be public inclusion in the formulation of ground rules (like preventing arbitrary qualifications), ensuring the referendum question is worded appropriately, guaranteeing adequate time for public deliberation, as well as providing sufficient resources for a national educational campaign.

Advocates have been alluding to the necessity of both informing and including public deliberation on the topic. The reference point is our very own Citizens' Assemblies. While the BCCA and OCA had the potential for meaningful change, and in many ways they did within the Assemblies, there was still the need for a broader education strategy on electoral systems. The issue of course is the scaling up from small forums to the general public where partisan actors and the media actively seek to manipulate the process to their advantage, as Dennis Pilon wrote in his 2009 and 2010 investigations of Canadian voting systems. Without entrenchment of some form of referendum process design, there is little recourse against political interference.

Ultimately, if a referendum is deemed worthy by the Party of the day, it should be in tune with an earnest attempt to invigorate participatory democracy in Canada. This may be ironic given that referendums are best used in countries that value power-sharing, the very principle that proportionally representative electoral systems entail.

Follow HuffPost Canada Blogs on Facebook

Also on HuffPost:

Voting Around The World

(01 of149)

By Cherise SeucharanCanada’s voting system is a bit behind the times. We are one of the few nations in the Western world that doesn’t have a process where every vote counts, and our pencil-and-paper ballots look pretty low-tech compared to the electronic systems of countries such as Australia, Germany and Venezuela. In the past five federal elections, Canada’s federal voter turnout was an average of 63 per cent — which is pretty low compared to other democracies.Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberals promised to reform voting by the next election in 2019. Perhaps Canada can learn a thing or two from other countries for potential ways to change how we vote.Here’s a look at some of the most common voting systems around the world: (credit:Peter Power/CP)

Majoritarian: Instant Runoff/Alternative Vote(02 of149)

It’s winner-take-all as one candidate is elected per district in a majoritarian system. But there are lots of different versions, like Canada’s first-past-the-post system. Country that uses it: Australia How it works: No vote goes to waste! Voters can rank all candidates from most to least favourite, or they can vote once for a party. The least popular candidates are eliminated, but they get to choose how to re-allocate those votes to the top candidates.It’s a bit like ordering a pizza with a group of your friends. You can only get one topping, but can rank your top three. If most people have chosen pepperoni as either their first or second choice, that’s the one you go with. (Pepperoni again. Sigh.)Last election turnout: 93 per cent—but voting in Australia is compulsory. Advantage: Even the most obscure parties get onto the ballot, including the Sports Party, Animal Justice Party, and the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party.Disadvantage: Australia’s ballots are said to be one of the most confusing, with huge ballots to list every single party.Fun Fact: The Motoring Enthusiast Party won a seat in Parliament at the last election.Are they considering reform? Yes, in March the Senate passed voting reforms that would limit vote-sharing and prevent “micro-parties” from gaining seats. (credit:Jon Super/AP)

Proportional Systems(03 of149)

Proportional systems are designed so that each vote is counted - instead of a single winner per district, each vote is tallied so the popular vote reflects the candidates in government.Mixed Member Proportional: Additional Member SystemCountry that uses it: Scotland (to elect its Parliament) How it works: Canadian voters are often forced to choose between a local rep, and a party they prefer. In Scotland, they don’t need to choose! Everyone gets two votes: one for their local representative, and then one regional vote for a party. On a proportional representation pizza, you can choose multiple toppings. If the majority want pepperoni, you will get mostly that —but can also get pineapple on half, or mushrooms on a third of the pie depending on how popular it is. Last election turnout: 56 per cent Advantage: The Law Commission of Canada recommended that Canada adopt a system similar to Scotland’s MPP voting system. Disadvantage: With this form of proportional representation, voters do not get a say in coalitions, so some candidates end up going to the Senate without much input from voters. Are they considering reform? Current system is still fairly new, put in place in 1999 when Scotland passed voting reform to make their system more proportional. (credit:Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP Photo)

Mixed Member Proportional: Single Vote Transferable(04 of149)

Country that uses it: MaltaHow it works: Instead of voting for a party, voters rank their favourite candidates on a single ballot. Each candidate must reach a quota of votes to win a seat, but these are tallied from all rankings — this way even votes for unpopular candidates still count.Your pizza toppings are ranked, and only the ones with a certain number of votes will be on the final plate. So if green peppers are your favourite but everyone else’s third choice, you could still end of getting it on a few slices. Voter Turnout at last election: 93 per centAdvantage: Voters don’t have to choose between an individual candidate and a party — they can choose which factors are most important to them when ranking.Disadvantage: Quotas, rankings, districts: this combination of factors can be confusing to voters. Fun fact: Malta has one of the highest voter turnouts in the Western world. (credit:Getty Images)

Proportional Representation: Mixed Member(05 of149)

Country that uses it: Germany How it works: Germany’s Bundestag (lower house) is elected through a system that combines elements of a first-past-the-post system and proportional representation. Voters cast two votes: one for a regional representative; and one for a party. The party votes will add more candidates to the House until the total reflects the proportion of votes. The Budenstag is like ordering multiple pizzas — more toppings and more choices for everyone. Last election turnout: 72 per cent Advantage: The German system is considered by some to be one of the fairest, combining the advantages of local representation with a proportional balance of seats.Disadvantage: Due to the two-vote system, the Bundestag elects a large number of people to its parliament — almost 600. Are they considering reform? In 2012, this system was declared unconstitutional, because of the “unfair” way the votes were weighted. Now there can be up to 700 seats, so correct proportions can be reached. (credit:Getty Images)

Proportional Representation: Direct Election Plurality(06 of149)

Country that uses it: Venezuela How it works: Venezuela is a multi-party system in which voters select a party as well as local representatives. 113 candidates are elected as individuals and 51 candidates are elected from “party lists” based on proportional numbers of votes. So it’s like picking a fave topping, then getting your best friend to choose the other toppings for you.Last election turnout: 74 per cent Advantage: Venezuela's technologically advanced system, in which voters register via fingerprint scan and can print a receipt at the end, is highly praised.Venezuela is the pizza delivery app of the voting world.Disadvantage: While many candidates run as independents and there are many small parties, most are said to be affiliated with one of two major parties, leaving less choice for voters.Fun fact: Despite very accurate voting counts, in 2013 losing presidential candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski demanded an audit, calling the system “a joke.” The audit was completed a year later, revealing no discrepancies. (credit:Getty Images)

Proportional Voting: Two-Round Lists(07 of149)

Country that uses it: France (for regional elections) How it works: Voters hit the polls twice in two rounds of voting for French regional elections (if there’s no initial majority.) The top parties go to the second round, with the winner getting an extra boost of 25 per cent more seats. It’s like if your fave topping doesn’t win the first round, but you get to choose again among the top choices. Last election turnout: 55 per cent Advantage: With a two-round system for all levels of government taking place on different schedules, voters are able to choose representation on many levels. Disadvantage: Tactical voting has been thought to cause sharp turnarounds in votes. In the last election, the National Front party polled highest in the first round, but lost all seats in the second round.Fun fact: France is the only Western democracy that holds two rounds of elections. (credit:Getty Images)

(08 of149)

(09 of149)

(10 of149)

(11 of149)

(12 of149)

(13 of149)

(14 of149)

(15 of149)

(16 of149)

(17 of149)

(18 of149)

(19 of149)

(20 of149)

(21 of149)

(22 of149)

(23 of149)

(24 of149)

(25 of149)

(26 of149)

(27 of149)

(28 of149)

(29 of149)

(30 of149)

(31 of149)

(32 of149)

(33 of149)

(34 of149)

(35 of149)

(36 of149)

(37 of149)

(38 of149)

(39 of149)

(40 of149)

(41 of149)

(42 of149)

(43 of149)

(44 of149)

(45 of149)

(46 of149)

(47 of149)

(48 of149)

(49 of149)

(50 of149)

(51 of149)

(52 of149)

(53 of149)

(54 of149)

(55 of149)

(56 of149)

(57 of149)

(58 of149)

(59 of149)

(60 of149)

(61 of149)

(62 of149)

(63 of149)

(64 of149)

(65 of149)

(66 of149)

(67 of149)

(68 of149)

(69 of149)

(70 of149)

(71 of149)

(72 of149)

(73 of149)

(74 of149)

(75 of149)

(76 of149)

(77 of149)

(78 of149)

(79 of149)

(80 of149)

(81 of149)

(82 of149)

(83 of149)

(84 of149)

(85 of149)

(86 of149)

(87 of149)

(88 of149)

(89 of149)

(90 of149)

(91 of149)

(92 of149)

(93 of149)

(94 of149)

(95 of149)

(96 of149)

(97 of149)

(98 of149)

(99 of149)

(100 of149)

(101 of149)

(102 of149)

(103 of149)

(104 of149)

(105 of149)

(106 of149)

(107 of149)

(108 of149)

(109 of149)

(110 of149)

(111 of149)

(112 of149)

(113 of149)

(114 of149)

(115 of149)

(116 of149)

(117 of149)

(118 of149)

(119 of149)

(120 of149)

(121 of149)

(122 of149)

(123 of149)

(124 of149)

(125 of149)

(126 of149)

(127 of149)

(128 of149)

(129 of149)

(130 of149)

(131 of149)

(132 of149)

(133 of149)

(134 of149)

(135 of149)

(136 of149)

(137 of149)

(138 of149)

(139 of149)

(140 of149)

(141 of149)

(142 of149)

(143 of149)

(144 of149)

(145 of149)

(146 of149)

(147 of149)

(148 of149)

(149 of149)

Suggest a correction

-- This HuffPost Canada page is maintained as part of an online archive. If you have questions or concerns, please check our FAQ or contact support@huffpost.com.

From Our Partner