Evidence of meeting #36 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 riding.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That was such a disappointed cry, Mr. DeCourcey, I'll let you go ahead, but just very briefly.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
No, Mr. Chair, I'll consult with my colleagues, and we'll bring it back.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
It might help, Mr. DeCourcey, that I have the same types of questions. Maybe we'll get to where you were looking to go.
I share some of those same concerns. I think it would be very difficult for voters to accept that the person they chose to be their representative would not necessarily be the representative in the riding. That's a significant drawback to the system you're proposing here.
That actually raises one of the questions I have for each of you today. One thing that's been made quite clear to us throughout our meetings across the country, and prior to that in Ottawa, is that there is no such thing as a perfect electoral system. I don't think one witness who's come before us has said, “Yes, I absolutely think I know the perfect system, and there's no drawback to this system.”
When we are designing a system, obviously we're looking at the different trade-offs that go with it, the positives and negatives. We're trying to come up with what we think is best in particularly the Canadian context, because our country is different from almost every other country in the world with regard to its size, its regional diversity, its sparseness in population, and a variety of other factors.
Mr. Risser and Mr. Falvey, you have come proposing your single member district PR system. What are the potential drawbacks, or what many people would see as drawbacks, to the system you're proposing? You've had a chance to explain some of the positives and what you would see as the rationale for wanting to go to that system. I wonder if you have any other comments you want to make with regard to some of the drawbacks you would see and the trade-offs that would come with your system.
3:30 p.m.
As an Individual
First of all, Denis and I aren't wedded to SMDPR. The only thing we're really wedded to is equal voice for equal votes. Any of the proportional alternatives on offer would be equally satisfactory to us.
We created—or Denis created, and I helped refine—SMDPR as a way to sell it to people who are hesitant because it's too much change. In that sense, the majority of time nothing would change under our current system in that the person who got the plurality would win. I don't want to overestimate the number of cases in which that would occur. As well—
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
We heard the example of the 2015 election in terms of what it would do here in Nova Scotia. Do you happen to have the numbers to tell us what kind of change we would have seen in, say, 2011, or 2008, or any of the other elections previous to that, just to give us a sense of it? You say it wouldn't change significantly in most elections. Do you have some numbers?
3:30 p.m.
As an Individual
The trouble with doing it that way is that while it's convenient as a proof of concept, you can't take one system based on how people are incentivized to vote and change it and know how they're going to vote. We can tell you that we've also tried to triangulate it with a few single vote MMP systems that are used in Germany to see, when people know it's proportional but they only have one vote, how much of a difference this would make. We can share that stuff with you, but I don't know how useful it will be.
I did want to make one point, though, in reference to a point you made about there being no perfect system, because this is something the committee says a lot. I just want to say that just because there's no perfect system, which there isn't, obviously, it doesn't mean that some systems aren't better than others.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
We have to look at the competing trade-offs and try to figure out which one is best for our country.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Exactly.
In terms of independent candidates, from reading the brief you sent, you give three criteria to be able to win under the system. The first one is to belong to a party that has proportionally won seats in the province or territory. Does that rule out the possibility of an independent candidate? What effect would this system have on an independent candidate? It seems based on those criteria that it would.
3:35 p.m.
As an Individual
We looked at that. There is a situation where under all other proportional systems, independents would have the same access in the riding in MMP or in list PR or STV or whatever. We struggled with that. The solution we came up with was that independents would run in local ridings the same way they do now, but they could voluntarily group their votes. The system we proposed has region sizes of about 10 to 15 in the larger provinces, and then, in the smaller provinces, the province is the region. It's the case that independents wouldn't be disadvantaged necessarily as much as they are under first past the post generally, because they could group the votes and transfer the same way it works within parties. But it would have to be voluntary, because independents could be diverse in their views.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thanks very much to our witnesses today.
I'm interested in the exchange you were just having, Mr. Risser, about all the systems being just differently imperfect as we look around. I think what you've offered us today is helpful. You've probably heard the committee or witnesses many times talk about coming up with a made-in-Canada type of system, because Canada is particular in all sorts of ways, some of them imagined but many of them quite real, and our voting system should reflect that. I was just reviewing the Japanese voting system, because it was brought up earlier. It's confusing for me.
That's helpful, but I can't get around that intuitive piece under your system that Halifax Centre could vote somebody top of the ballot, a well-liked, popular person, yet that person would not become the MP. You'd be able to justify their vote in saying that it contributed towards other people in other districts. If I'm a voter and I have attachment to that person or party or leadership, whatever it was that determined my vote, I want that person. I'm not sure how satisfied I'd feel saying that I contributed to somebody in Dartmouth getting ahead for that party.
Do you understand my challenge and perhaps some of the challenges of the other MPs around the table?
3:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. The perception issue is definitely there. I would say that for me, as a voter, far more important than individual MPs is the fact that the government not be elected with fewer votes than the opposition. I think that speaks to the major difference between proportional and majoritarian systems. Under proportional systems, we're one nation electing one Parliament, and under majoritarian systems, we've become no more than an aggregate of 338 ridings.
There are lots of other systems on offer. The only thing I'd urge you to do is to look at some of the benefits of SMDPR that counter that perception. Parties would have to run slates of candidates in all ridings because they couldn't be entirely sure who was going to win. There's enhanced accountability locally, actually, because just getting the plurality isn't the same. I wouldn't want you to dismiss SMDPR out of hand.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
3:35 p.m.
As an Individual
No, I don't at all. I would say just look at our brief and look at the benefits.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
What I would look to in this, as we look ahead to this committee's work, is to put together a proposal and come to some agreement around this table, which I think is very possible, because the committee is working really well together.
Correct me if I get any of this wrong, but I did walk this away from your presentation: that 30% didn't vote; for the 32% of Canadians who did vote, votes were cast for a person who is not represented in the House of Commons; votes from 11% of Canadians who voted went to MPs that were already above their plurality and were just sort of “feel-good”; the majority government, with exactly 100% of the power, got 10% of the effective votes; and the opposition was elected opposition with 9% of the effective votes.
3:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. First of all, what you have to look at is this. If you look at the total voting age population rather than the registered turnout, which is what tends to get reported, only 62% of Canadians voted. We got those figures from the voter turnout database at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, which in turn got them from Statistics Canada. Of the 62% who voted, or whatever it was—this is the voting age adult population—32% voted for losing candidates all across the country. Another 12% were the surplus that they didn't need to win.
In terms of the effective vote, yes, the votes that it took to elect Parliament came from about 19% to 20% of the population. About half of that was to elect the government.