Evidence of meeting #24 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 saskatchewan.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Would you be able to submit to our clerk a copy of the report you helped to write regarding Scotland so that we could get it translated and circulated to members of the committee?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you both, gentlemen, for being here. This is very good. It's a polarity in terms of presentations, if you've got strong opinions on what happens next and strong opinions on how we need to consider change.
Let me start with you, Dr. Boda.
I have one question on donkey voting, which is one of my new favourite terms but doesn't say much about the elector. It's the idea that if you have a voting system whereby voters rank candidates, then voters will start numbering down. Do you have any sense out of the countries that use this system—and there are not that many—if it is 1% of cases? Is it 5%?
It's not the result we were hoping to get. We want people to be informed and make choices and make a better choice with whatever new voting system we bring in. Do you have any sense of that out of Australia or other places as to how prevalent it is?
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
I am not an expert on the Australian electoral system, so I wouldn't want to offer you a number. I know it is a problem and it is what led to the different approach to balloting that took place there.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
They mix it up or have randomized ballots, in a sense, so not all ballots look the same to a voter. That way, even if people donkey vote, you're not just going to get the first candidate on the top of every list? Is that right?
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
That's correct. As a result, it won't have an impact on the outcome.
Now this being said, the randomization of ballots is not only caused by donkey voting; the literature will tell you there are other reasons for randomizing.
NDP
September 19th, 2016 / 2:45 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
That's what the literature will tell you—
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
On the question of online voting, I know you're not bringing an opinion as to whether we ought to or not. Am I framing the question correctly in suggesting that it's a risk-versus-benefit test that we should be putting to this as a committee, in that there are benefits offered with allowing voters to vote online and there are also risks? Is that a fair way to try to describe this option for Canada?
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
I would be content with having a discussion over that.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You see, you talked about integrity, which is one of the guiding principles of this committee. We have to come up with a voting system that can maintain the integrity of the results. What challenges are presented from what you know that we should be made aware of with regard to online voting and the integrity of the system?
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
You mentioned integrity and you mentioned accessibility. Whether you're talking about online voting or about voting in person, those are two things that I'm constantly balancing—integrity and accessibility—with secrecy being very important there.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Let me just ask this. In the countries that use this system, how does one guarantee that the ballot has been cast secretly and without persuasion if it is done on a smart phone?
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
Presently there is no certainty of that. Someone can be looking over your shoulder. If you're in an Internet café, someone can be there. If you're voting at home, you could be coerced by another member of your family.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'll turn to Professor Smith for a moment.
In terms of how long we've been at this—I just did a quick search because I admit I didn't know—Parliament has been debating this question for as long as the University of Saskatchewan has existed. The next time you're walking the halls, in the ivy and whatnot.... We've been at this for a little under 100 years; the school is a bit older than that.
In your preamble, your opening, you talked about how this first-past-the-post system, the status quo, has nothing inherent in it. You said that Canada has done well not because of it, but despite it. Can you elaborate on that?
Prof. Charles Smith
Well, it's interesting to look at how government has changed. We're approaching our 150th anniversary, and almost all of our institutions have changed except for the voting system. The Constitution has changed. Who can sit in Parliament has changed. The number of MPs has changed. Our court system has changed and evolved in terms of what judges do and how much power they have.
When you look at the voting system, you see it hasn't changed. You could make the argument on the one hand that it's because it works so well and everyone's happy with it, or you can make the argument, which is what I believe, that when you look at how things have changed—at how we've achieved, for instance, universal suffrage—you see that it wasn't handed down from on high, from parliamentarians, with all due respect to the expertise of the parliamentarians on this committee: it was done by very dedicated social activists who took the task upon themselves, and they often put their bodies on the line to fight for political change, just as with LGBT rights or workers' rights. The expansion of the ballot over time wasn't handed to them; it was taken by people exerting pressure.
Look at how people have tried to organize for change through the political process. Parties often have a very difficult time because they don't have a regional base. Look at one of the dominant questions of our time, climate change. You have a party, the Green Party, that puts it at the centre of its agenda, but it doesn't have a regional base; it has a broad national base. It's very small, so it doesn't have much representation in Parliament, so—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Actually, I let it go much longer because it was an interesting question and a good answer. I think it's something we needed to clarify.