Evidence of meeting #21 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was change.
A video is available from Parliament.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
So I don't think we're under-representing anybody specifically. In the last election, 68% of the Canadian population voted, which was a historic high for the last while. The correlation between the people who are voting and the people who are online is almost one to one.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
In fact, most of the best polls that came out in the last election were all done online. So it's not really a question of representation.
As far as seeking out other methodologies are concerned, absolutely. We're always interested in making sure that we're best representing public opinion and we will continue to do surveys on this—although you're going to have to line up your time behind Madam May.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
She has the first questions, and we're going to move around the table here, but we'll see if we can make sure that we have good representation.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
That would be great.
I know that we've been talking a lot about the criteria for selection, or the guiding principles or the values that Canadians hold dear, because as we've heard, there is no one electoral system that will be the panacea for everything. There are some little tweaks we can do here and there. For instance, if we want to increase voter participation, we can look at mandatory voting or other things, such as adding more days for elections, letting people have the day off on election day, and so on.
I'm not trying to solicit you to do the following, but are you looking at doing any polling on the most important values or criteria according to the public? I ask because it's going to be a trade-off when we're making this decision, right?
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
Yes, I think that we get into a real discussion about how we form governments and all the rest of it. Really what the public is looking for is accountability. They want to know who they can grab by the nose, if they don't like what's going on. The more complicated and the more distant you can make that, the less effective it will be seen as a tool for accountability by the public. I think that's pretty clear.
I think that as proposals emerge from the committee, as we see the form of the final report in December, it's an important public issue, and IPSOS will always be doing research on important public issues.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Dr. Johnston, you mentioned that whatever it is that we do, we must not revert back. We've heard from other witnesses saying that we should perhaps think about holding a referendum, maybe two or three election cycles after we change the system, to see if citizens are still happy with the change or if we should revert back.
I'd like to get your opinion on that.
Prof. Richard Johnston
I don't have a problem with a reconsideration of the change after it has really had a chance to sink in. New Zealand's second referendum struck me as perfectly appropriate.
The notion, though, that we should experiment in 2019 with a system and then have a referendum strikes me as inappropriate. We will see the results of the election—they could surprise us—but I doubt that the parties would have settled into any kind of equilibrium, so to speak, response to the rules of the game, nor will we actually know the identity of the full set of parties that is likely to emerge.
A notion of a subsequent consultation strikes me as perfectly appropriate—just not in the immediate aftermath. The notion that somehow we could have a trial run in 2019, and then we'll do a different one in 2023 or something like that, just strikes me as nuts.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Mrs. Romanado, your time is up.
We will now start a second round of questions with Mr. DeCourcey.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
I've certainly appreciated some of the recent conversations and the last lines of questioning around the importance of consultation. I believe it's a hallmark of what we've set out to do, to consult broadly with Canadians and encourage members of Parliament right across the country to reach out, as my colleague Sharon mentioned, to some of the unusual suspects, Canadians who oftentimes are left out of the dialogue on important matters that concern them.
I've also really appreciated the balanced approach this panel has taken in addressing some of the different value propositions in front of us, the different systems that embody those different values— and certainly the brief that you provided, Professor Johnston, does that. We've been very fortunate as a committee to have plenty of testimony on the merits and particular proposals within the PR family—which I think helps us take that to the public—albeit less so under majority systems.
You mentioned a bit about majority systems here in your brief. I wonder if you can perhaps expand upon some of the merits of a majority system. You talk about the two-round system as a traditional method of achieving a result. Are you familiar with the majority rule proposal that was presented to us yesterday by Dr. Maskin, and if so, do you have any insight on its merits?
Instead of having two rounds, it's essentially a way of developing what you call a “straight fight” through one ranked ballot.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
It is a little bit different from that. Of course, in AV the bottom candidate falls off and their second choice ballots are redistributed. In this system everyone's relative competition versus every other candidate is weighted together. But regardless of that, what about the merits of a majority system?
Prof. Richard Johnston
You have to understand that the animating spirit of any majoritarian system is essentially like that of the existing system. It just does it better and with fewer anomalies and, in particular, is less likely to produce what an academic would call “social choice perversities”. It's not perfect. It's always possible that the true second choice of a majority of people on the ballot is eliminated before you can get to that candidate, but I think that's a relatively small problem.
If the majoritarian framework is the preference of the broad range of people, then I think the alternative vote is the way to go, because it does ensure that, as fairly as can reasonably be said, the person who emerges as the winner is preferred to the alternatives in a straight fight. That's, in some sense, the essence of functioning majority rule. It doesn't produce proportionality, make no mistake about that. It could produce some amount of functional coalition behaviour, but the record suggests not really.
The recent record in Australia, where governments of the right in particular have failed to get majorities, partly reflects other features in the system, in particular the existence of the more or less proportionally elected senate, which has had the effect of dissolving some of the claims of the big parties in House elections in Australia.
But in terms of general fairness, I do think that if you're operating within a majoritarian framework, a majority ballot is a better ballot than first past the post. I am of that view.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Based on your testimony—and tell me if I'm wrong—I would venture to say that regardless of what system is put in place, we can't know in perpetuity how it will benefit a particular party, how it will be perceived by the voters. It really depends on time and context and a lot of other factors at play.
Prof. Richard Johnston
Yes. There are broad tendencies that we can draw from the literature, but it's very difficult to take those broad tendencies and place them on a concrete result for the particular package that a particular country represents.
With your indulgence, can I just say one thing?
Prof. Richard Johnston
The nature of political party organization is hugely important here. The majoritarian operation in Australia is vulnerable to backbench spills all the time. If you go to the old Parliament building in Canberra and look at the total number of Prime Ministers of Australia, it's enormous because of the spill system. That's hugely consequential, but it has nothing to do with the electoral formula.
Liberal
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I used to live in Australia, so I've watched with great interest the Gillard-Rudd back and forth. I'm not sure if “tug of war” is a more apt analogy, or a “teeter-totter” or “push me pull you”. Anyway, one of those analogies works well for that, and that's just the Labour Party.
Professor, I did want to ask about something you said earlier, but just in passing. I think I'm characterizing what you said correctly, and this is why I'm asking the question. Under MMP it is possible to have electoral districts with significantly different populations for the purpose of better representation in rural areas, better connection for the MP and the riding, and then to have the list system even it out so that you still get a proportionate result. Is that in fact what you said?
Prof. Richard Johnston
That is what I said. It obviously depends on how big the list component is relative to the single-member component. But I would think that one of the appeals of MMP in this country—it might have been part of the appeal in New Zealand, although I think they're thinking more of the German model—is that you can adjust the size of boundaries, as we do now, as a function of the difficulty of representing the place, but you can do so in a way that does not prejudice the balance of power amongst the parties relative to their support in the population at large, which it does do now, right?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Yes, it does.
I sat on the parliamentary committee that dealt with electoral boundary proposals in both the most recent distribution and the one that took place in 2004. I don't know if it's affected the balance among parties, but it's definitely affected the weight that each voter's vote counts for in the House of Commons. Some of the boundary commissions have been very cognizant of that. In others, in particular my own province of Ontario, I think they've been quite abusive of that. As a result, people in certain parts of the province have votes that are worth a great deal less. That's just an editorial on my part. You gave me a chance to get it off of my chest.
Mr. Gibson, I did want to ask you about the citizens' assembly model. You indicated that you have documentation you're prepared to share with us as to how that model could be used nationally. A number of practical concerns have been expressed about whether that model, which was applied in Ontario and in British Columbia successfully, could be used once you start moving across time zones and have linguistic issues and so on.
I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say on this subject.
As an Individual
I don't have any documentation prepared.
However, it seems to me that you could, if you wished.... You could start with the British Columbia model and then adapt it to the national purpose. You maintain, for example, the parity of gender. You maintain the same number of people per riding. It wasn't needed in the B.C. case because it was an overwhelming consensus, but if in fact decisions are made by vote, you have sort of a constitutional amendment type vote.
This is just me talking. You would probably only have one representative for every two ridings because I think 160 people, 170, is about as many as you can properly manage, but I might be wrong. You could try it with one per riding. In any event, you would get a very good representation of Canada with the same random selection. Of course, there's a self-selection part to it too.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Quickly, in British Columbia the delegates met on several occasions, all physically in the same room together.
Is it your view that it is necessary, or could at least some of the consultation be done....? I'm thinking of expenses here obviously, and the way people spend their lives. Could it be done electronically online? It is, after all, a decade or more since the B.C. citizens' assembly. Or, is the value of having people in the same physical space something that can't be overridden?
As an Individual
I think they have to meet, just as you have to meet here in this committee.
I think you have to be in the same room, and you have to do it seriatim, time after time. Get to know each other. Get to know the facts. Get to know the public. It's very much a learning process. It's just one small point of the whole political world, but there's a lot to be learned about electoral systems.