Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 30th, 2016

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Right, but in—

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

Yes, and Mr. Lijphart uses 36 countries.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

And elections since the end of World War II.

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

Until what year?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

The updated book I think takes us into the 2000s. I'll have to double-check.

In this case—and it is very interesting to look at one election only in these countries—I was surprised that you decided that the Australian majority party of the Liberal-National coalition wasn't an anti-immigration party.

For my colleagues in the Green Party of Australia, elections are fought in Australia over immigration policies. The current majority government under first past the post in Australia maintains some of the most horrific conditions for refugees in the settlements on Nauru, but you didn't classify them as anti-immigration.

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

No, because they're not opposed—and the definition is very clear in the brief I gave you—to legal immigration.

Now, their politics turn on immigration in a way that we should hope ours never do.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Exactly, and that's why in looking at this, we see that New Zealand, Ireland, and Spain, all with PR, have no factional party opposing immigration, and under PR in Germany and France, which do have some worrying anti-immigration parties, those parties have no seats.

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

I don't regard France as a PR country. I regard France as a majoritarian country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

All right, but in Germany, which is clearly MMP, the anti-immigration forces have not attained seats.

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

Yes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

What we're really looking at is a worrying thing, which is that in the last elections in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Austria, the anti-immigration parties have made some gains.

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

Yes, and in other countries as well.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

In looking at this, I wanted—

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

To be sure, those parties are now in government. They're in government.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes.

The initial question I had was whether there was more information. I'm gratified to know that we're on the same page. We know we're looking at the quality of data we have. Thank you for taking the time to put together the information on the last election in those countries.

I have some questions from Twitter that I didn't think I have time to get to, but I do want to ask this question. It comes from Ann, in Nelson, and it's to you, Professor Maskin.

How would majoritarian rule reflect diversity of Canadian voices?

[Prof. Eric Maskin]

It's by giving voters the opportunity to put their favourite candidates, whoever they might be—even someone who has little chance of winning—first on their ballots. Under the current system, if I vote for an unpopular candidate, a candidate who is unlikely to win the seat, I'm in effect throwing away my vote. My voice in favour of that candidate isn't being heard, and so I have a strong incentive to vote for someone else who does have a chance of winning.

Under majority rule or alternative voting, we can see from how people have voted which parties are truly favoured.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I know my time is up, unfortunately.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Mr. Aldag is next.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Professor Maskin, I've gone through your written submission a couple of times. Something that I'm not seeing, and it may be a subtle difference, is the difference between what you call majority rule and alternative voting. You note that majority rule deals with five of the five problems; alternative voting deals with only four of the five.

I'm trying to figure out how nuanced the differences are. Is it a mathematical calculation? Ultimately what I'd like to hear from you is how important the shift is overall from the first past the post system we currently have to something else within a majoritarian system, as opposed to making a dramatic shift into something like proportional representation.

There are three pieces there.

[Prof. Eric Maskin]

Let's take your first question first.

I think the easiest way to see the difference between alternative voting, which is sometimes called instant runoff voting, and what I was talking about, majority rule, is to use the example that is on the screen.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I've been looking at that.

[Prof. Eric Maskin]

As I showed you in that example, candidate B is the majority winner because B beats A by a majority, and B also defeats C by a majority.

However, if we use alternative voting, instant runoff voting, then we'd look only at first-place votes, so 40% vote for A, 35% vote for C, and 25% vote for B, we notice that B, who is actually the true majority winner, is eliminated under alternative voting. That's because under alternative voting, if no candidate gets a majority of first-place votes, you eliminate the candidate who has the fewest first-place votes, and that's B in this case.

This example encapsulates the difference between majority rule and alternative voting.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I think where it leads me is that there are a number of options or permutations within systems. Are you making that there are enough flaws within the current system that we should look at something else, yet not go so far as to invent a completely new system, such as a proportional system?

[Prof. Eric Maskin]

Well, proportional representation is not an entirely new system. It's used widely around the world, and very successfully.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I mean new to Canada.