We understand. Thank you.
Your turn, Mr. Aldag.
Evidence of meeting #28 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 elected.
Evidence of meeting #28 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 elected.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I'd like to thank both of our witnesses for being here today.
As I was listening to your presentations, the place my mind went to is that there is an element of complexity in the calculations that would be used. That's fine, and I accept that some systems, in order to get proportionality and other things, need the mathematical calculations. I will tell you that I thought it would be perfect to give it to Elections Canada to sort out and do all the algorithms and things that are needed.
I've spent a lot of my career in the communications field, and what I've been struggling with is how I would sell the systems you've put forward to Canadians. What is the benefit?
Without wanting to put you on the spot, I wonder if you could give me your 30-second pitch on how we could make this understandable to Canadians and why the various changes you're proposing are a better way to go. Then we could allow Elections Canada to deal with the behind-the-scenes calculations. From a communications perspective, would you be able to give me a pitch on why we should make this change and why is it best for Canada?
2:35 p.m.
Consultant and Tutor, Université TELUQ, As an Individual
It changes nothing, but it is proportional.
You would still have your MP. The trick is that in our system, your vote does not have the same weight as everyone else's. You just change the weight, and everything returns to one-to-one. That's the deal.
Our system is not proportional; we just twist the curve to make it proportional.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
So there is actually an element of simplicity in the messaging, and—
2:35 p.m.
Consultant and Tutor, Université TELUQ, As an Individual
Except for the result of the election, the elector votes exactly the same way, he has an MP, and the campaign is the same. You have to be good locally, because it would be throughout. The only issue is the change in local election, which will create some frustration, at least in the first election. After two or three, the system will probably stabilize. If you change the voting system, it takes three elections to have the whole political system adjust. Don't cry after the first.
That would be my pitch—it's just the same thing, but proportional. We just correct the system.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Fair enough.
Monsieur Rémillard, what would you say to that? Why this change? How do we explain it simply to Canadians?
2:35 p.m.
As an Individual
My colleague said something quite interesting: it changes nothing. It just goes about things in a different way. If that is the case, why change?
If it ain't broke, don't mend it.
My thinking is slightly different.
I am not looking for mathematical precision. Are people looking for mathematical precision. Some of them yes, because it would be in their interest. When I use the word “rationalize”, I do not mean that we need to look only at the calculations. We also have to consider human psychology, certain political data, and people's political knowledge. The election result still has to be intuitive enough to be accepted.
Everything does not have to be about complicated political mathematics that perhaps 1% of the population will understand. The result really has to correspond to the will of the majority. In that sense, the current plurality system actually works well most of the time, but it has to be corrected at its margins. It does not have to be changed completely, just corrected at the margins while keeping what is relatively well accepted and making sure that the parts of the situation that are a little more unfortunate are made less so. It is not a matter of changing everything.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Quebec City, the most beautiful city in the world. If there is something that brings us together, from the Green Party to the Conservative Party, it's certainly our love for Quebec City.
Ms. May, I knew that, one day, there would be something we would both agree on completely. Do not think that I will be reminding you of the last election results in Quebec City. That would disrupt our harmony a little.
Gentlemen, welcome to Parliament.
Mr. Dutil, first and foremost, you have my congratulations and thanks for becoming involved in politics and wearing the colours of a political party, no matter which one. I remember your campaign against Dr. Bolduc, in a provincial byelection right here in Quebec City. I was a reporter at the time. I salute you, sir.
I'd like to say something about your story of winners who are losers and losers who are winners. We are all open-minded here, but I can assure you of one thing: I will never defend that position and I will never run in an election where a loser can become a winner and a winner can become a loser. Nor will I ever run in an election where the vote of one citizen would be worth 0.99% while another would be worth 3.8%, as you said just now.
That goes against all democratic principles. It may fit with some things in the Bible. In Matthew 20, it says: “So the last will be first and the first will be last.” I won't go on because people will say that the Conservatives are talking about the church again. So let's forget that.
Mr. Dutil, how can we accept someone's vote being so disproportionate, especially when it is arithmetic, an algorithm, that turns fifth place into first place?
I know that all my colleagues are curious about that. As concisely as possible, try to give me a good argument that will convince us that such a system is a good one.
2:40 p.m.
Consultant and Tutor, Université TELUQ, As an Individual
Votes are not valued equally at the moment. In a constituency election, there are four chances out of five that a person's vote will not count. That is how a lot of people interpret it. If candidates are defeated, the votes cast in their favour are not considered. If they get less than 10% of the votes, the chances of them being worth anything are basically zero. The system is already warped. You have run in a number of elections in a warped system and it has never caused you a problem.
Certainly, the result in a first past the post system is a natural one. The problem is that, in a proportional system, whatever the variable, something similar is going to happen. Whether because of the lists or anything else, distortions will naturally appear at the regional level. I am telling you that no system can prevent that. It is certainly an irritant. I do not know how many constituencies it occurs in, though. I don't know whether it's in a third of them or not. If we consider a fifth of them, there is perhaps 2% difference in the votes for the one who comes first and the one who comes last. That is what I do not know yet. I have not done any simulated calculations, because it is a lot of work. As I said, you can ignore all the constituencies where the result goes over 50%. I believe that a third of constituencies might be affected. Perhaps that is acceptable. I know that people are probably going to complain, to react badly, but the overall result will be closer to reality. Locally, it may be a little bit more frustrating.
There is another factor that I forgot to mention. Because of the vote-splitting, plurality includes a margin of error. In the case of Quebec, I calculated that it was from 20% to 25%. I do not have the figures at federal level, but I have calculated them for Quebec. In 20% to 25% of the cases, the one who won, who obtained most votes, who came first, was not the people's choice. It would have been different if the voting system used had determined the Condorcet winner, who is supposed to be the one who would beat everyone in an individual election.
The margin of error is 20% to 30% currently; we are used to it, we find it acceptable. People are elected, are welcomed into Parliament and represent their constituents. You are perhaps thinking about people who won because the vote was divided between three or four parties. There are some like that and I am sure that they make good members of Parliament anyway. Some people may feel that it makes no sense. However, I have noticed that, once someone is elected, people tend to consider that they are in the position legitimately. Those of you who received fewer than 50% of the votes, those who were elected with 31% or 32% of the votes, are very likely to have won indirectly. You came first but you were not the people's first choice. We handle it; that's the way things have worked for 200 years.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
You say that, with 50% plus one, people are elected directly. Great, that works for me. I have run in four elections and I have won three of them with more than 50%. The MP for Quebec City, who is with us today, is now a senior minister in the current government and he was elected with 28% of the votes. That makes him no less duly elected. He himself acknowledges that he is not a minister for Quebec City, but that is another issue.
In the conditions you describe, no democracy can work.
Take the second round of voting in France as an example. There is a candidate A and a candidate B and one of them has to get an absolute majority. If we start from the principle that there is no balanced voting system because one vote means nothing, it means that, for 48% of the people who do not vote, those who vote for the losing candidate, their vote is lost. No, in democracy, no vote is lost. Each vote expresses an opinion. Just because the candidate of our choice lost does not mean that our vote is lost.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We have to move to the next speaker.
Mrs. Romanado, please. It is your turn now.
Mr. Dutil, you can still answer the previous question. There is no rule against that.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you very much for being here today and for your testimony.
Before I ask my question, can I ask you to answer Mr. Deltell's? Thank you.
2:45 p.m.
Consultant and Tutor, Université TELUQ, As an Individual
The problem with integrating votes is that votes are lost. Plurality discards votes whereas other voting systems do not. One voting system that I like very much is approval voting, which is really very simple. People are not forced to vote for one candidate only. I am not suggesting forming a Parliament in that way, but it could be appropriate for byelections in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. In those places, strategic voting tends to disappear into thin air. People vote for the candidate they like the most. The one with the most votes really is the one supported by the greatest number of people. For the mathematicians amongst us, it would not necessarily be the Condorcet winner. Nevertheless, with plurality, the margin of error is frightening, between 20% and 30%.
There are other methods. The N-round system is a little better. The margin of error is from 10% to 15%. If you want a voting system that really determines the local winner, and makes sure that it is the right one, it might still be fine. However, I know that, by so doing—and Raymond Côté is going to propose something along those lines in a moment—you end up with centrist parties. You eliminate some options. It is always a matter of choice. You either want some diversity in Parliament or you want people in the centre. There are two types of voting systems, depending on what you want the result to be.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Let me stop you there.
You mentioned diversity in Parliament. According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which prepares a ranking list of the number of women members of national Parliaments, Canada currently ranks 64th. At the moment, 26% of our federal MPs are women.
How will your two proposals help to convince women to run for election and to get themselves elected? I would like your explanation of both parts of my question. Thank you.
2:45 p.m.
Consultant and Tutor, Université TELUQ, As an Individual
I do not see how it can change anything. Even proportional representation does not change a lot. The reason why there are more women members in countries that use proportional representation than in others is that the Scandinavian countries were the first to adopt that kind of representation. In the 19th century, the Scandinavian countries gave everyone the right to vote, including women. They were 50 years ahead of other countries.
A few years ago, Quebec ranked among the best in the world in the rate at which women were progressing in politics. For some reason that I do not understand, we slammed on the brakes. The voting system has little effect.
The problem that women have entering politics is often attributed to the fact that, once elected, members get themselves reelected for decades. I can think of constituencies where the same politicians are elected over and over again. Mr. Gendron, in Quebec, for example, has been an MNA for 25 years. So, as long as members, most frequently men, do not lose or do not leave their seats, access to women will remain closed.
If the voting system changes, 30% of members will lose their jobs automatically and, if there are enough female candidates, the proportion of women should increase, as it did in New Zealand. Then, the normal course of society will resume its rights.
I know that some people would prefer the list system they have in Rwanda, where positions are alternated between a woman and a man and a woman and a man. It is the only country in the world with that system. Almost all other countries that have a quota increase it by 2% a year, setting it just under the number of women that, according to the forecasts, should be elected if the trend is maintained.
Countries like Norway ended their quota because they could not get enough women. The Green Party in Norway, because of the rule requiring a third of women, could not get as many women as they wanted. So the rule was abolished.
I am very hesitant about quota systems. Some swear by them, but I do not.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Great.
I want to leave a little time for Mr. Rémillard so that he can explain to us how his system can help women in politics.
2:45 p.m.
As an Individual
I pretty much agree with Mr. Dutil.
Basically, the system itself will not promote women in politics. Women have to take the initiative themselves and run for election.
However, the system must provide a real chance of being elected. We need a system where votes are not lost, even for candidates obtaining a low percentage of the votes.
In the system I am proposing, candidates with 10% or 20% of the votes in their constituencies will not be elected. However, candidates with 1% of the national vote will be appointed as members because, if you multiply 1% by 0.5, let's say, that gives one half and if you multiply one half by 300, you get one and a half. One and a half gives you a member. So, with that system, the higher percentage of votes a party gets, the more members it gets. The calculation is easy.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
September 22nd, 2016 / 2:50 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
My thanks to the two witnesses.
As some of my colleagues have mentioned, your perspectives are quite original. You remind me how bad I am at mathematics. So you will understand that my questions will not deal with the models that you are proposing.
You brought up points about human and psychological factors, which I find very interesting. I’d like to discuss them.
I have been in politics for nine years and I have been interested in voting systems for the same length of time. As Mr. Rayes pointed out, it is not the only reason why not everyone goes to vote with conviction on the morning of an election, but for me, it is one of the factors at play.
For me, going to vote is an exercise in civic participation of the highest importance. One of the reasons that motivates me to be in politics is to get people feeling involved. I believe that the status quo, the current voting system, contributes to cynicism and the rise of strategic voting. Although it is in Quebec culture to not want to lose elections, the numbers game has its limits.
Mr. Dutil, my first question goes to you, but if you have something to add, Mr. Rémillard, feel free to do so.
You very briefly brought up some psychological theories and human factors that explain why people feel concerned and decide to go and vote. What I find interesting is precisely that you cannot take the results of the 2015 election and analyze them in terms of a new voting system, because the voting system itself influences the way in which we vote.
Could you expand on that?
2:50 p.m.
Consultant and Tutor, Université TELUQ, As an Individual
That’s the strategic voting calculation.
Mr. Deltell said earlier that the most popular sport in the world is soccer. Why is that? Because soccer is the sport where chance plays the greatest role. There are a number of examples where outsiders or third-division teams have beaten national teams.
When you know the results in advance, there is less temptation to get up in the morning to go and vote. When the member in our constituency has been the same for four elections and he is not a candidate in the party of our choice, we are perhaps less tempted to go and vote.
Not being too sure about what is going to happen is a factor too. The 1995 referendum is a classic case, as is the Brexit in England. No one knew what the result would be. The power of a vote was not much greater than normal, but, from a psychological point of view, it meant a lot. Not knowing what the result will be counts a great deal.
I have seen purely proportional elections in Spain, and they are pretty dry. The difference between the result of the last opinion poll and the result of the election is minimal, a few percentage points. I am not sure that more people would go and vote if we moved to a voting system like that.
People are very interested in what is happening locally. Elections are also one thing among many. People do not think about politics all the time. People do not naturally participate in parliamentary committees or municipal council meetings. Either they do not have the time or they tell themselves that nothing is going to change. But I myself have done it several times. This is my fifth or sixth consultation, and I have always felt that I have made a contribution.
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Some of my colleagues have brought up the importance of local representation; that is part of all of our lives as members of Parliament. For people to feel involved, they have to be convinced that they are choosing someone who will speak for them, someone who will represent them. Those who represent them really are the reflection of their votes. In my opinion, it is one of the motivating factors for having a proportional voting system.
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I quite agree with what you have just said. In my terms, I would say that there has to be a link between the voter and the elected representative and the link must even be quite close. Today, the link is quite loose. Who calls their MP or goes to see him or her? When and how do MPs manage to reach not only the voters, but the general public? There are various activities, agreed, but there is some disillusionment with politics. In my opinion, it is a societal problem, not just a political one.
That said, strategic voting quite often happens in reaction to something. People are fed up with the government. People do not agree with this decision or that decision. People then vote strategically in order to bring about a change. It is not that they vote without motivation; they may be highly motivated. It is just a pure calculation.
There was something else I wanted to say but I have forgotten it.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's fortunate, because the time is up.
Mr. Maguire, the floor is yours.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both of our witnesses for their presentations today.
Mr. Dutil, you said earlier that the human mind can only rank about seven candidates. I'm wondering if you could elaborate on which system you were speaking of. Without being too facetious, I would agree with my colleague that the first word that comes to mind here is “complex“. That's why I make that comment, only partly sarcastically. I wonder if you could help us understand how you came to that conclusion.
You also mentioned that economics helps narrow ideas to two parties. Is that correct?
You also said that a proportional system leads to an increase in the number of parties. Could you comment on that?