![]() | ![]() ![]() | ![]() Click for Search Instructions |
Home |
|
ELECTORAL READING
Citizens' Assembly members had a hefty reading and study list
for the summer of 2004. We thought you might be interested, too,
in reading about some of the latest
developments to that time in electoral reform:
1. The Law Commission of Canada has published
a report entitled Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for
Canada that advocates the adoption of an MMP system for
election of members to the House of Commons. The Law Commission is
made up of five commissioners (one full-time, the others part-time)
appointed by the government of Canada to do research, and publish
reports, on issues they believe important.
This report argues that the time has come for electoral reform
and after a very cursory description (and dismissal) of other
electoral systems proposes a version of MMP with 2/3 of the seats
in constituencies as present, the rest in provincial lists that
would be "flexible", but which in practice would probably work as
closed lists.
2. The
Richard Commission
(on the powers and electoral
arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales) reported that the
Welsh assembly needs to increase in size, and recommended that it
should move from its current AMS (what we call MMP) electoral
system to the Single Transferable Vote (STV).
The Commission was set up to examine the experience of the new
Welsh Assembly. That body had been created with significantly less
powers than the Scottish parliament (created at the same time). The
commissioners believe that the Welsh Assembly needs to have its
powers and responsibilities changed to more closely mirror other UK
parliaments and argue that, to make the system work, the Assembly
will need to be a bit larger and change its electoral system.
The report is a long one: Chapter 12 deals with the electoral
system and why the commission believes it should be changed.
3. Vancouver electoral commissioner Tom
Berger’s report,
A City of
Neighbourhoods
, recommends that the city adopt the
single-member plurality (First Past the Post) electoral system for
city council elections, but keep the at-large system for electing
the Parks Board.
Commissioner Berger notes that the current Vancouver Charter
limits (by provincial law) what the city can do, making it
impossible for it to adopt any form of proportional representation
without the legislature changing the charter. Nevertheless,
Commissioner Berger reviewed the arguments for PR and though not
convinced they would meet the city’s needs better than
moving to a ward system (effectively, FPTP) he does suggest that,
of the various PR systems reviewed, STV "might well provide the
fairest system of voting".
4. The Independent Commission to review
Britain's Experience of PR Voting Systems has produced a
comprehensive report entitled Changed Voting Changed
Politics: Lessons of Britain's Experience of PR since 1997.
The commission was an independent body established to review the
experience of Britain's many new voting
systems — in Scotland, Wales, London, and
for the European Parliament as well as the Assembly in Northern
Ireland.
The Commission’s report concludes:
(i) there is no ideal electoral system, but the experience of new voting systems in the UK helps to undermine some widely-held myths on both sides of the debate; (ii) there is no evidence that PR is too complicated for voters, or that the resulting coalition governments in Scotland and in Wales are necessarily weak or ineffective; and (iii) low turnout in all the PR elections held so far contradicts the claims of advocates that PR helps to increase turnout.
5.
The Dutch government has produced a
discussion paper (Framework Memorandum on a New Electoral
System: Towards a Stronger Parliament) suggesting the country
adopt a new mixed electoral system which would see half the members
electedm in identifiable local multi-member constituencies by the
Single NonTransferable Vote (SNTV) — though
only if they meet a quota which might mean some district
‘winners’ would not actually get a seat!)
and the rest from national party lists (possibly preferential
though the real openness of them might be modified in practice by a
threshold).
Voters would have two votes – a local vote and a
party vote – and candidates would not be allowed to run
in both parts of the system.
At an international symposium of electoral system experts held
in California (May 13-14) to review the proposal and provide
advice, a number of difficulties with this complicated scheme were
detailed. There was a general view that the nomination rules and
strategies of parties would be critical to how it really worked;
most experts seemed to think that, given Dutch political realities
and its multi-party system, STV would be preferable to SNTV at the
local level.
(This report is not available online.)
6. The Ontario government has introduced
a bill in the provincial legislature providing for fixed
election dates (first Thursday of October every four years from
2003).
7. Premier Pat Binns of Prince
Edward Island
announced in late May that he will appoint a commission to come
up with a prospective new electoral model for the province, and
teach Islanders about the new model. Then it will draft a
referendum question and call for a vote on whether to switch to
proportional representation.
8. In the Timlin lecture (Doing Democracy
Differently: Has Electoral Reform Finally Arrived?) given at
the University of Saskatchewan in March, Ken Carty, chief research
officer for the Citizens' Assembly, reviewed the recent
developments that have given rise to the electoral reform impulses
in contemporary Canadian politics.
The lecture argues they are being driven by a concern for
politics, and not the traditional concerns of governance. One
important consequence of this has been a shift in the way in which
reform is being approached, the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly
being the most dramatic and significant initiative.
A revised version of the paper will appear in a forthcoming
issue (40:3, 2004) of Representation: Journal of Representative
Democracy under the title: Canadians and Electoral Reform:
An impulse to doing democracy differently. It is not available
online.
|
© 2003 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform | Site powered by ![]() | Site Map | Privacy Policy |