Olivia Chow will make a wonderful Toronto mayor. The only thing that scares me is her support for the “ranked ballot” shell game.
Under a winner-take-all electoral system, only 1 candidate is elected to each position, so voters have only have a single chance to elect the candidate who supports the issue most important to us. With such a system, I should vote for John Tory. Although I disagree with the man on every other level, he is the only frontrunner who opposes the adoption of AV/IRV, which has been touted as “the” ranked ballot system.
Should I be forced to vote for a candidate I find so repugnant I would cross the street to avoid? We shouldn’t have to even consider such a thing, and wouldn’t if we had a truly democratic system. But we don’t; we have a winner-take-all system that gives a single candidate all the power. With an electoral system that allows more than two candidates, this means a majority of voters fail to achieve representation. Under such a system, what is surprising isn’t that so many Canadians don’t exercise the right to vote, it is that so many of us continue to do so, even knowing that our votes won’t count.
In spite of how absolutely crucial I believe electoral reform to be, I don’t think I could vote for Mr. Tory. I would have to vote for Olivia Chow, in spite of this one important thing on which we disagree. But I’m confident she’s smart enough to see through that and decide to support meaningful reform to Proportional Representation during the course of the consultation process. I’m confident that Olivia Chow wouldn’t close her eyes to new information to continue down the wrong path to avoid the appearance of being “wishy washy.” I don’t know about you, but I would prefer a government that looks at facts and makes policy accordingly. Like many women, Olivia Chow is more of a do-er than a conformer. What matters is to fix the problems.
So, yes, I think Olivia Chow will make a wonderful Toronto mayor, even though she currently opposes what I believe to be the single most important issue at all levels of Canadian politics, namely meaningful electoral reform.
The Truth About Ranked Ballots
“Ranked ballots” are in themselves neither proportional or non-proportional. They can be used in a proportional system, Like “STV” (Single Transferable Vote”) or they can be used in a non-proportional system like “AV” (Alternative Vote) — which is also sold under the aliases “IRV” (Instant Runoff Voting), “Preferential Ballot,” “Ranked Choice Voting” or “Ranked Ballot.” and probably more I haven’t encountered yet. Changing the name doesn’t change the system; it doesn’t matter what you call it, this winner-take-all electoral system will always smell unfair.
The people pushing “The Ranked Ballot System” claim all the advantages of STV (the proportional ranked ballot system that a clear majority of BC citizens voted to adopt) without having backed up such claims with evidence. Because the truth is, the advantages arise out of a switch to a proportional system, not from the type of ballot. If your neighbor’s blue painted house is cooler than yours in the summer. your white house won’t be any cooler if you paint yours blue. To make your house cooler, you would need to install air conditioning like your neighbor did.
Although AV/IRV and STV both utilize ranked ballots, the way in which they are employed in the two systems is dramatically different. AV/IRV eliminates the candidates with less support and transfers their support to the front runners. STV transfers the surplus support of the front runners to voter’s 2nd or 3rd choice candidates who don’t have enough support to meet the threshold.
But the real difference between the two systems, the most important difference, is that AV/IRV is a winner-take-all system. We already have an unfair First Past The Post (FPTP) system; the same one we have used since even before confederation. This kind of system is undemocratic because some votes count more than others, and some votes don’t count at all. In contrast, STV is a Proportional Representation system intended to make every vote count. When only some people are represented, it’s not really democracy.
Another thing supporters of AV/IRV suggest is that parties are necessary for Proportional Representation. Because of this, they say we can’t achieve PR at the municipal level because parties aren’t allowed at this level in Ontario. That simply isn’t true. Not just that parties aren’t involved in our municipal politics, but the truth is that you don’t need parties at all to achieve Proportional Representation. When we are talking about electoral reform, people talk about parties because that’s what we have experience with. Still, Canadians need look no further than our own Nunavut & NorthWest Territories to find working examples of No Party Rule. Maybe once we have Proportional Representation, we’ll be able to dispense with parties altogether.
“Proportional” just means that voters are proportionally represented by the candidates we select. If 50% of us are women, around 50% of our representatives should be women. If 70% of us don’t want mass surveillance, 70% of our elected representatives should reject laws that would legitimize mass surveillance. A good proportional outcome should have candidates that will represent the spectrum of all our interests. In an unfair system that elects only a single representative, we choose parties because then we might be able to influence more than one policy– if our choice of candidate is lucky enough to be elected.
With a winner take-all-system, we generally have to pick the candidate we think best reflects our views, often our most important view– and hope she gets elected. THEN we must trust she will govern in ways we find acceptable. Rather than being represented by a single candidate, we would all be better represented by more than one, because we are each more complicated than that.
While I agree with one candidate on housing, I might disagree on transit. By having multi-member electoral districts (where we elect more than one candidate) we can elect candidates who will give voice to all our interests. And once we have such proportional representation, the representatives need to forge consensus in how they govern.
But right now, in your riding, if the candidate you vote for doesn’t get elected, you don’t have any representation at all. (Some people NEVER get representation– after a while they stop voting.) But if your electoral district would be able to elect 5 or 10 representatives, your chances of representation on at least one level would skyrocket. Better still, you are probably going to be able to elect candidates who will represent the full spectrum of all our views– not just the views of the winner.
The reality of winner-take-all systems is that, if you are LUCKY, you *might* elect the Candidate that agrees with the single issue most important to you. If you are luckier still, that representative will actually work to resolve that issue to your satisfaction. But if that issue is actually less important to your new representative than it is to you, once elected, your new representative may never lift a finger to deal with your most important thing. So how represented are you then?
No matter what AV/IRV supporters say, my 3rd choice of candidate is NOT equivalent to your first choice of candidate. For instance, if I have only 3 candidates to choose from in Toronto’s mayoral race, if I rank Olivia Chow #1, John Tory #2 and Doug Ford#3, I would not consider myself represented if Doug Ford became mayor. On the other hand, the people who ranked Doug Ford 1st would be ecstatic, not only because they elected the candidate they wanted, but because they can now count my 3rd choice towards his victory, they can now pretend he had actual majority support, and thus, that his government has more democratic legitimacy. But the reality is that he won’t, and a majority of citizens will continue to be unrepresented by the new mayor.
The point of Proportional Representation is that ALL citizens deserve adequate representation, and that is just as important– and maybe even more so– at the municipal level of government.