Thanks.
It's a really important issue to me, the issue around electing more women, and I know there are barriers to electing women. We know that it's during the nomination process. There was a study by Kaminsky and White who talked about women's responsibility, confidence, barriers to getting into nominations, and different things, but the electoral system changes the mechanism by which women run. If you think about our ridings, the way that they are silos right now, we vote for certain members, and we don't know outside of our silo if a party is running a lot of men or a lot of women. When you change the dynamic of the way the electoral system runs and you can see multi-member regions, you start to see parties that don't run any women, and that puts a lot of pressure on parties to start running women.
The other thing is it's a diversity issue. Australia is a perfect petri dish example of this. When Kaminsky and White looked at Australia, the same voters vote in their Senate and in their lower House, which is the alternative vote. It's a winner-take-all one-member riding, and the upper House is STV. They have elected more women year-over-year in their upper House, and the study they looked at said it can only be the electoral system because of the population, because the ballots are the same, the voters are the same, all of these variables have been eliminated and it's the voting system.
When you look at New Zealand, you see a whole range of numbers on diversity that change. For women, the numbers go up, but from 1996 to 2011 the number of women in the House doubled. We believe it's the multi-member ridings. There are also ways that you can do zipper lists, when you give people the option to run males, females and, yes, some legislation would be great. There's quotas in some countries and different things, but I think it's tied to the electoral system. We're not saying it's going to give you gender parity, but it will certainly give us a bump in more women being elected.