FVC: Consultations Provide Strong Mandate for Proportional Representation #ERRE

This is the twenty-fifth article in the Whoa!Canada: Proportional Representation Series

[Guest Post by Fair Vote Canada]

The all-party committee on electoral reform (ERRÉ) has just finished four months of expert and public consultations. They will make their recommendation to Government by December 1st.

Of the ERRÉ witnesses with a position on voting systems, 88% recommended Proportional Representation. This reinforces the findings from decades of research from around the world and of 13 previous electoral reform processes in Canada, including two thorough and impartial citizens assemblies.

When the Government launched the process without a mechanism for collecting empirical data, Fair Vote Canada, a multi-partisan advocacy group, started tracking the process very closely. We are releasing the results of our work to the media because we believe the process needs to be transparent and accountable.

(You can find key a list of results below with links our spreadsheets.)

Despite a strong call for proportional representation across all of the consultative platforms, we believe reforming the electoral system could be in serious trouble based on recent comments from Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Monsef.

President Réal Lavergne expressed Fair Vote Canada’s concerns “We are worried that the Minister and the Prime Minister are saying that we cannot count on the government keeping its promise to make every vote count. Yet experts and Canadians have clearly expressed themselves in favour of proportional representation, which is what it really means to “make every vote count.”.

David Merner, Vice-President of Fair Vote Canada and former LPC candidate (2015)

David Merner, Vice-President of Fair Vote Canada and a Liberal candidate in last year’s federal election adds “This is not the time for back-tracking. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Democratic Institutions have personally created a sense of hope in Canadians, building on the 2015 Liberal campaign promise of Real Change. Millions of voters believed that the government intended to keep its promises. We believed the political cynicism of the Harper years was behind us, and thousands of us participated in the government’s consultations in good faith.”

Merner says “Now is the time for the government to deliver on its promises.”

Highly regarded Conservative strategist and spokesperson for the Every Voter Counts Alliance, Guy Giorno, adds that “committee members must endorse what’s right for Canadians, not what benefits any particular party. Given the weight of the evidence before the committee, the only legitimate option is a recommendation for proportional representation. Let’s also remember that electoral reform was a major issue at the last election, and voters overwhelmingly supported parties promising change.”

The weight of expert testimony in favour of PR was echoed across the country in hundreds of town halls and public dialogues.

Over the next few days the ERRÉ will negotiate a recommendation for a new electoral system for Canada. The final report is due on December 1.

Fair Vote Canada’s President Réal Lavergne explains that “Once that recommendation has been made, it will be incumbent on the minister to carry it forward and for the government to act on it. Leadership will be required to educate both the public and parliamentarians, and to champion the proposed reform.”

“Based on all the results of the expert and citizen consultations, the committee’s only legitimate option is to recommend in favour of proportional representation.”

Key indicators from ERRÉ hearings

Canadian Electoral System expert Dennis Pilon testified before the ERRE Committee.

88% of expert witnesses who expressed a preference called for proportional representation

4% supported the Alternative Vote
(majoritarian ranked ballot systems tend to evolve towards a two-party system, often favour centrist parties and could further entrench the distortions brought about by our existing majoritarian system. )

67% thought a referendum was undesirable or unnecessary.

Detailed analysis can be found here in our Synthesis of witness statements and views.

Open Mic-sessions

From coast to coast, Canadians lined up at the ERRÉ open-mic sessions asking that the committee keep the promise and deliver PR.

According to data released this week by the NDP, out of 428 participants who spoke up, 374 (87.38%) called for proportional representation.

MP town halls

Total number of town halls reporting: 174

The following indicates the level of support observed for proportional representation in MP town halls.

69.5% (121 town halls) – Majority of speakers calling for proportional representation.

8.6%% (15 town halls) – Majority for electoral reform, but no clear majority specifically for proportional representation

5.2%  (9 town halls) – Support divided between majoritarian system and proportional representation

5.7%   (10 town halls) – Majority for the status quo

8.0% (14 town halls) – Report does not allow any majority view to be identified

2.9%   (5 town halls) – Majority support for the Alternative Vote

Detailed analysis can be found here in our
Synthesis of witness statements and views.

Citizen Community Dialogues & Events

Here are basic indicators from the 27 dialogues or town halls hosted by citizens and community groups posted on the ERRÉ site or for which we have directly obtained the information so far:

Total number of participants: 1,058

88% (22 events) – A majority of speakers calling for proportional representation

8% (2 events ) – A majority for change but no majority for any one option

12% (3 events) – Report does not allow any majority view to be identified.

We are aware of at least 15-20 other community dialogues that are not yet posted on the ERRÉ site.

Detailed analysis can be found here.

Minister Monsef’s Townhalls

Minister Monsef organized two types of town hall consultations: ones in her own riding, and others as part of a cross-country tour. Here is an extract from the report submitted to the ERRÉ on town halls held by Minister Monsef in her Riding of Peterborough:

“It is clear that there is an appetite for thoughtful change to the electoral system. While opinions on the various electoral systems did vary, most participants indicated their support for a more proportional electoral process that still respected the need for local representation and simplicity of the ballot.”

Although Minister Monsef routinely conducted straw polls on issues such as mandatory voting and online voting in town halls on the road, she did not do the same regarding support for proportional representation. FVC volunteers attended these events across the country and shared their opinions. Here are a few quotes from participants:

Toronto: “PR was clearly the main issue for most. With respect to PR, many attendees spoke passionately and eloquently in favour, and if anyone present opposed it, he or she was not bold enough to express that view.”

Vancouver: “It seemed that 90% of the audience… did want some form of PR.”

Edmonton: “ It seemed most people were in support of some sort of proportional representation.”

Yellowknife: “She asked whether the participants liked FPTP to remain, or Ranked system or STV or MMP or Proportional Representation implemented. One voted for FPTP. Many voted for MMP and a few voted for PR.”

Yukon: “Some Yukoners came in support of our current electoral system (First Past the Post); more were on the side of moving towards proportional representation.”

Halifax: “The feedback from the groups certainly favoured PR.”

Montreal: “There was an overwhelming support for PR in the room.”

Thunder Bay: “Of the dozens who rose to spoke, everyone spoke in favour of PR.”

Gatineau: “ Participants spoke to PR at every opportunity they had… However, the format made this difficult… Taking into consideration those interventions that spoke to the issue of PR vs FPTP or AV, the overwhelming majority of interventions – in the order of 70% or more – were in favour of PR.”

Waterloo: From the report of 4 MPs: “Every group discussed the need for our new electoral system to feature some degree of proportionality.”

Charlottetown: “ About 90% of the people there were pro-PR.”

Winnipeg: After noting that three people were for FPTP because they feared losing local representation. The rest of the comments I heard were mostly just preferences for the different PR systems.”

Happy Valley-Goose Bay: “What we said was that we wanted PR  BUT, it had to be a hybrid type that considered the lack of population and massive land mass of not only Labrador but 60 % of Canada, i.e. the North.”

Calgary: “There was overwhelming support for getting rid of the current system, with different groups mentioning STV or MMP as their top choice.”

A concluding note

And, to conclude, this eloquent quote from a Fair Vote Canada volunteer at the Victoria town hall where the Minister said she “can’t promise you that I’ll be advocating for PR because I haven’t heard that from an overwhelming majority across the country.“

Victoria:

“The wheels were skidding out of control as we tried to combat the spin we received at last night’s town hall on Electoral Reform. Maryam Monsef, the Minister of Democratic Institutions hosted the gathering in Victoria billed as “the last chance” to give your input. But the tone of the meeting was quite acrimonious. They were clearly managing the message while backpedaling from an election commitment about changing the electoral system. Not only did she defend Trudeau’s recent comments about no longer needing this reform because we voted for HIM.”

“After months of hearing expert witness by the proportionally cross-partisan panel, and while MPs held public consultations with thousands of Canadians across the country, are we now to believe there is no appetite for Proportional Representation? Monsef said that she has not yet made up her mind but the implication of her words was troubling. Will the government diminish the committee’s well-researched, democratic report in December by championing their predetermined preference? For many of us who attended last night the so-called consultation felt like a sham.”

---

---

PS from Laurel:

I’ve chosen to used my own photographs, here, not only because they are free culture photos (licensed to share under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License) but because the number of electoral reform events in and around Waterloo Region has been staggering, and I wanted to share some of them with you, but there were so many local ERRÉ events that I attended (and I didn’t attend them all)  that there isn’t enough room here to use photos from them all!

There was a time not long ago when I knew nothing about electoral reform.  It was only when I was asked to take photos at local Fair Vote Waterloo events that I found myself listening to what the Fair Vote folks had to say, and after a while I even started understanding it.   This was not an easy process, nor was it fast.  It can take a while to really gain an understanding of something completely different from what we’re used to.  

That’s why every electoral reform event must incorporate an education piece.  The thing that I have seen over and over again is that even though Canadians may not know the words for it, or how to fix it, we know something is wrong with our voting system that needs to be fixed.

That is why Mr. Trudeau’s “We will make every vote count” resonated with so many people.  

And what I have learned from every discussion and every ERRÉ event I’ve attended is that when Canadians have a chance to understand the difference between winner-take-all and Proportional Representation, we almost always want some form of PR.    I think that’s because most Canadians value fairness, and the only way to get to a point where the votes of most Canadians actually count will require some form of Proportional Representation.  

Fair Vote Canada suggests Canadians who want to see the implementation of some form of Proportional Representation would do well to let the ERRÉ Committee know about it, and to make it easier for us, they have an automated tool to help us send a letter urging the committee to recommend PR here:

http://fairvotecanada.good.do/thankyou/keepthepromise

• Proportional Representation for Canada
• What’s so bad about First Past The Post
• Democracy Primer
• Working for Democracy
• The Popular Vote
• Why Don’t We Have PR Already?
• Stability
• Why No Referendum?
• Electoral System Roundup
• When Canadians Learn about PR with CGP Grey
• Entitlement
• Proportional Representation vs. Alternative Vote
• #ERRÉ #Q Committee
• #ERRÉ #Q Meetings & Transcripts
• Take The Poll ~ #ERRÉ #Q
• Proportionality #ERRÉ #Q 
• The Poll’s The Thing 
• DIY Electoral Reform Info Sessions
• What WE Can Do for ERRÉ
• #ERRÉ today and Gone Tomorrow (…er, Friday)
• Redistricting Roulette 
• #ERRÉ submission Deadline TONIGHT!
• #ERRÉ Submission by Laurel L. Russwurm
• The Promise: “We will make every vote count” #ERRÉ
• FVC: Consultations Provide Strong Mandate for Proportional Representation #ERRÉ
• PEI picks Proportional Representation
• There is only one way to make every vote count #ERRÉ
• Canada is Ready 4 Proportional Representation
• Sign the Petition e-616
• #ProportionalRepresentation Spin Cycle ~ #ERRÉ
• International Women’s Day 2017 ~ #IWD
• An Open Letter to ERRÉ Committee Liberals

and don’t forget to check out the PR4Canada Resources page!

Proportionality #ERRE #Q

This is the sixteenth in the Whoa!Canada: Proportional Representation Series

Not so long ago I had no idea there was any other way for Canadians to elect our government than the system we use now.  When I began getting frustrated that no one I ever voted for ever got elected (no matter which candidate or party) it never even occurred to me the solution to my problem could lay in our voting system.  All I knew was that the time I invested in Canada’s democracy ~ time spent learning about the candidates and issues and then voting for the candidate I thought would best represent me ~ the whole process had proven to be a futile exercise.  In more than 30 years of voting, no one I had ever voted for got the chance to represent me in Ottawa.  Or Queen’s Park, for that matter.   It got even worse when I moved back to my home town to raise my family, because it was a “safe seat.”

Since there didn’t seem to be any point to voting, I began wondering why I should keep doing it. Every time an election rolled around, there was a lot of talk about how awful our low voter turnout.  But maybe all those Canadians who weren’t wasting their time casting ineffective votes were smarter than I.

The lightbulb only went on over my head when I found myself listening to what people were saying at local Fair Vote events.  They talked about why 39% of the votes shouldn’t equal 100% of the power.  That made more sense than what happens when 39% of the voters elect a majority government.  I learned that the only reason we use this system is because it was the same system England had been using… a system forged in the middle ages.  Nor did I realize that a large part of the problem with our Westminster plurality electoral system had not even been designed to be democratic until I heard Canadian electoral system expert Dennis Pilon tell this to the ERRE Committee.

The reason is that the system was not designed to be democratic. Its origins are in the pre-democratic era, and it has been kept in place for electoral self-interest. Canadians have struggled to make their system democratic despite these institutional barriers. Proportional representation systems, by contrast, were designed to represent voters effectively, even if the motives of reformers were not always democratic.”

— Dennis Pilon, speaking at the Thursday, July 28, 2016 Erre Committee

At first I felt pretty silly for not having figured it out myself.  But the more I learned, the less foolish I felt. The first time I saw the John Cleese on Proprotional Representation video (yes, that John Cleese), I was a little jealous that our British friends found out about Proportional Representation decades ago.  But I have to tell you, I was shocked when I discovered they hadn’t adopted it for UK General Elections in spite of the clarity Mr. Cleese brought to the subject.  Although the new voting systems established for Scotland and Wales are proportional.  Just as Ireland uses Proportional Representation.

The more I’ve learned about proportional Representation the more flabbergasted I am to realize more than ninety countries around the world have adopted Proportional Representation systems but Canada has not.  But not for want of trying.  Most Canadian electoral reformers date the need for Proportional Representation to the 1920’s, when Canada shifted from being a two party system to a multiparty system.  The reason for this is that when you have a 2 party system, whoever wins a First Past The Post election will have has done so with an actual majority of votes.  But because FPTP is a plurality system, the winner needn’t have a majority.

Still, even before we had more than 2 parties, not everyone was happy with our system.

History

There have been Canadians looking for electoral reform since before Confederation when the British government decided to pass The Act of Union amalgamating Upper Canada (Quebec) and Lower Canada (Ontario) in 1840.  Each province received 42 seats in legislature.  Unsurprisingly French Canada got the short end of the stick because of it’s larger population of 697,084.  This meant on average 16,597 French citizens shared a representative, while an average of only 10,849 English Canadians shared a representative.  Naturally the French Canadians protested this, clamouring instead for Representation by Population or “Rep By Pop”… or at least until the English population began outstripping the French when the tables turned.

In the late 19th Century, noted Canadian Sir Sandford Fleming offered a thousand dollar reward for anyone who could come up with a better way to elect our parliamentarians in An appeal to the Canadian Institute on the rectification of Parliament (1892)  So there have always been Canadians dissatisfied with the inequities inherent in our system.  And over the years there have been changes made, it took a while, but we finally managed to achieve universal that allowed every adult Canadian, regardless of race or gender to have a vote.  Bur even so, Canada’s democratic deficit has been growing.  In recent decades, our system more and more Canadians have disengaged from politics, leaving the job of voting up to only about 60% of the eligible voters.  Even more alarming has been the fact a growing number of Canadians have largely stopped voting for what they actually want because they know there is little or no chance of getting it.  After all, we live with a system in which a party seeking the dismantlement of Canada managed to become our Official Opposition Party decades before the NDP could.  The fact is that voting “strategically” — not for the candidate who will best represent us, but for the candidate we think is the least worst.  So many Canadians feel compelled to try to game the system that doesn’t work for us is a sure sign we are not getting the representation we want and we dare not even try.

ERRE

The main reason for all of this is that our FPTP system does not deliver the results most Canadians want.  When a party with a 39% plurality wins the election, that means 61% of eligible voters didn’t vote for that party.  But the way our system works, that party can walk away with 100% of the power, because the winner only needs to get more votes than the others  to get majority power.  (And that is without factoring in the uncast votes of the 40% of eligible voters a constituency comprised of more eligible voters than those who voted in a 39% majority Liberal Government in 2015 or a 39% majority Conservative Government in 2011.   In our multi-party FTTP system, we get far more phony majorities than actual majority governments.  As the Liberal Party did in 2015, and the Conservative Party did in 2011.

The problem with disproportional results is too many voters don’t get representation in Parliament.  And the problem with phony majorities is that a Majority Government without the support of a majority of voters has the power to make policy and law without the support of a broad base of Canadians.  That’s why proportionality is important.

The Liberal Party promised electoral reform during the 2015 election, and the system we have gives them the power to deliver.  And they have.  The LPC Government has gone so far as to accede to the NDP request to restructure the composition of the Parliamentary Committee studying electoral reform to be proportional.  These are good signs.

The ERRE Special Committee on Electoral Reform has been tasked with consulting with Canadians to find out what we want out of Electoral Reform.  The ERRE Committee is reaching out to Canadians in a variety of ways, both online and off.  One of the most important pieces of the process ought to be the ERRE Committee’s Cross Canada tour so they can consult with ordinary Canadians face to face.

This is a natural part of any consultation process.  Earlier in the year I was the photographer for all 5 Fair Vote Waterloo delegations to the Waterloo Region MPs elected in 2015.  Fair Vote asked each Liberal MP to do what they could to bring the Electoral Reform Committee to Waterloo Region.  So I was surprised when I saw that Waterloo Region was not included on the itinerary the ERRE Committee had set out for the real world part of the consultation.

Some of my Fair Vote friends have suggested Waterloo Region might have been omitted because their group is so active here.  After all, Waterloo Region might even be considered responsible for the fact the Federal Government is holding an Electoral Reform Consultation at all.

As the Honorable Bardish Chagger wrote,

The Liberal Party electoral reform policy plank, which received wide spread support from Liberals across the nation, originated right here in the Waterloo Region as a grass roots initiative within the Liberal Party Membership. It was one of my proudest accomplishments, as the past president of the Waterloo Federal Liberal Association, to work with a team of fellow volunteers dedicated to electoral reform.

I can understand why the ERRE Committee wishes to to seek out and consult with Canadians who are not as well informed about electoral reform issues as some Waterloo Region residents are, but I see no good reason for the ERRE Committe to avoid ordinary Canadians who do have some understanding of the issue.  Isn’t the point of a Parliamentary Consultation to consult with all Canadians, to find out what Canadians might want from electoral reform — even those who might already know what they hope for from electoral reform?

That is worrisome.

But even more worrisome is the proposed ERRE Committee Itinerary.

ERRE Cross Canada Consultation

Ontario Population: 13.6 million (January 1, 2014)
1. Toronto

Québec
Population: 8.215 million  (July 1st, 2014)
1. Québec, Québec
2. Joliette, Québec
3.  Montréal, Québec

British Columbia
Population: 4.631 million  (Jul 1, 2014)
1. Victoria, British Columbia
2. Vancouver, British Columbia

Alberta
Population: 4.146 million  (Oct 1, 2014)
1. Leduc, Alberta

Manitoba
Population: 1.282 million  (Jul 1, 2014)
1. St-Pierre-Jolys, Manitoba
2. Winnipeg, Manitoba

Saskatchewan
Population: 1.13  million  (Oct 1, 2014)
1. Regina, Saskatchewan

Nova Scotia
Population: 942,926 (Apr 1, 2015)
1. Halifax, Nova Scotia

New Brunswick
Population: 753,914       (July 1st, 2014)
Fredericton, New Brunswick

Newfoundland and Labrador
Population: 526,977       (July 1st, 2014)
1. St. John’s, Newfoundland

Prince Edward Island
Population: 146,283        (July 1st, 2014)
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island

Nunavut
Population: 37,174    (est Jan. 1, 2016)
1. Iqaluit, Nunavut

Northwest  Territories
Population: 44,291   (est Jan. 1, 2016)
1. Yellowknife, Northwest Territories

Yukon
Population: 37,193   (est Jan. 1, 2016)
1. Whitehorse, Yukon

Fairness

I have no problem at all with this Parliamentary cross Canada Consultation stopping once in Nunavut, twice in B.C and Manitoba, or even 3 times in Québec. The point is to consult with Canadians across the country.

What I simply can not understand is how the ERRE committee can limit its itinerary to a single stop in the most populous province, Ontario.

---

• Proportional Representation for Canada
• What’s so bad about First Past The Post
• Democracy Primer
• Working for Democracy
• The Popular Vote
• Why Don’t We Have PR Already?
• Stability
• Why No Referendum?
• Electoral System Roundup
• When Canadians Learn about PR with CGP Grey
• Entitlement
• Proportional Representation vs. Alternative Vote
• #ERRÉ #Q Committee
• #ERRÉ #Q Meetings & Transcripts
• Take The Poll ~ #ERRÉ #Q
• Proportionality #ERRÉ #Q 
• The Poll’s The Thing 
• DIY Electoral Reform Info Sessions
• What WE Can Do for ERRÉ
• #ERRÉ today and Gone Tomorrow (…er, Friday)
• Redistricting Roulette 
• #ERRÉ submission Deadline TONIGHT!
• #ERRÉ Submission by Laurel L. Russwurm
• The Promise: “We will make every vote count” #ERRÉ
• FVC: Consultations Provide Strong Mandate for Proportional Representation #ERRÉ
• PEI picks Proportional Representation
• There is only one way to make every vote count #ERRÉ
• Canada is Ready 4 Proportional Representation
• Sign the Petition e-616
• #ProportionalRepresentation Spin Cycle ~ #ERRÉ
• International Women’s Day 2017 ~ #IWD
• An Open Letter to ERRÉ Committee Liberals

and don’t forget to check out the PR4Canada Resources page!

#ERRE #Q Meetings & Transcripts

This is the fourteenth in the Whoa!Canada: Proportional Representation Series

The Special Committee on Electoral Reform has been meeting since June 21st, 2016 and we are fortunate to live in a time when such proceedings can be televised to allow citizens to follow along as they happen.  Better yet, these sessions are also available online, making it possible for us to watch as it happens, or later at our leisure.

The First Batch of ERRE Special Committee on Electoral Reform Committee Meetings is over.  You can watch the video or read the transcripts online.

[update: I’ve just discovered where the expert witness submission briefs are posted. They are grouped together with submissions being made by Canadians who will not be appearing.  I’ve added links to the witness briefs below, but I recommend you check out those made by non-witnesses, too.]

MEETING 1

Tuesday, June 21, 2016 ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
Election of Chair, Vice Chairs and Administrative Business

Listen on ParVu

MEETING 2

Wednesday, June 29, 2016 ~ Minutes
Establishing the ground rules for the Committee
Proposed ERRE Committee Meetings: July 6, 7, 25, 26, 27, 28; August 22, 23, 29, 30, 31; September 1st.

MEETING 3

Wednesday July 6th, 2016 ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Hon. Maryam Monsef, P.C., M.P., Minister of Democratic Institutions  • Testimony Transcript •
• Isabelle Mondou, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet and Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council  • Testimony Transcript •
Watch on ParlVu http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/Redirects/ParlVuMeetingPage?MeetingId=9012450&meetingDate=2016-07-06&isAudioOnly=false
Watch on CPAC

CPAC: Post Meeting interview with Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef

MEETING 4

Thursday, July 7, 2016 ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer  • Testimony Transcript •
• Stéphane Perrault, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Regulatory Affairs  • Testimony Transcript •
• Michel Roussel, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Electoral Events  • Testimony Transcript • 

Watch on ParlVu 
Watch on CPAC

Post Meeting Interview on CPAC: Mayrand Discusses Voting Reform, Possible Referendum

MEETING 5

Thursday, July 7, 2016 ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007  • Testimony Transcript •

Watch on ParlVu 
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 6

Monday, July 25, 2016 ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• R. Kenneth Carty, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia  • Testimony Transcript • 
• Brian Tanguay, Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University  • Testimony Transcript • 
• Nelson Wiseman, Director, Canadian Studies Program, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto  • Testimony Transcript •

Watch on ParlVu 
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 7

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 ~ 9:30am  ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Michael Marsh, Emeritus Professor, Trinity College Dublin (by videoconference)  • Testimony Transcript •
• Michael Gallagher, Professor of Comparative Politics, Trinity College Dublin (by videoconference)  • Testimony Transcript •
~ Submission Brief

Watch on ParlVu 
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 8

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 ~ 2:00pm ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Patrice Dutil, Professor, Ryerson University  • Testimony Transcript •
• Peter Russell, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto ~ Submission Brief  • Testimony Transcript • 

Watch on ParlVu
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 9

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 ~ 7:00pm ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Tom Rogers, Electoral Commissioner, Australian Electoral Commission (by videoconference)  • Testimony Transcript •
• Robert Peden, Chief Electoral Officer (by videoconference) New Zealand Electoral Commission ~ Submission Brief  • Testimony Transcript • 

Watch on ParlVu
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 10

Wednesday, July 27, 2016 ~ 9:30am ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Henry Milner, Senior Researcher, Chair in Electoral Studies, Université de Montréal ~ Submission Brief  • Testimony Transcript • 
• Alex Himelfarb, Clerk of the Privy Council, 2002-2006  • Testimony Transcript •
• André Blais, Professor, Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal  • Testimony Transcript •

Watch on ParlVu 
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 11

Wednesday, July 27, 2016 ~ 2pm ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Leslie Seidle, Research Director, Canada’s Changing Federal Community, Institute for Research on Public Policy  • Testimony Transcript •
• Larry LeDuc, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto  ~ Submission Brief  • Testimony Transcript • 
• Hugo Cyr, Dean, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Université du Québec à Montréal ~ Submission Brief  • Testimony Transcript • 

Watch on ParlVu 
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 12

Thursday, July 28, 2016 ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Dennis Pilon, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, York University ~ Submission Brief  • Testimony Transcript • 
• Jonathan Rose, Associate Professor, Department of Policital Studies, Queen’s University  • Testimony Transcript •
• Maryantonett Flumian, President, Institute on Governance  • Testimony Transcript • 

Watch on ParlVu 
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 13

Monday, August 22, 2016 ~ 2pm ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Benoît Pelletier, Full Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa  • Testimony Transcript •
• Arend Lijphart, Research Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of California, San Diego (by videoconference)  • Testimony Transcript •

Watch on ParlVu
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 14

Monday, August 22, 2016 ~ 6pm ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Nathalie Des Rosiers, Dean, Faculty of Law, Civil Law, Ottawa University  • Testimony Transcript •
• Christian Dufour, Political scientist, Analyst and Writer ~ Submission Brief  • Testimony Transcript • 
• Harold Jansen, Professor of Political Science, University of Lethbridge  • Testimony Transcript •

Watch on ParlVu
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 15

Tuesday, August 23, 2016 ~ 9:30am ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Barry Cooper, Professor, University of Calgary  • Testimony Transcript •
• Nicole Goodman, Director, Centre for e-Democracy, Assistant Professor, Munk School of Global Affairs  • Testimony Transcript •
• Emmett Macfarlane, Assistant Professor, University of Waterloo ~ Submission Brief 

Watch on ParlVu • Testimony Transcript • 
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 16

Tuesday, August 23, 2016 ~ 2:00 p.m.~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Matthew P. Harrington, Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal  • Testimony Transcript •
• Thomas S. Axworthy, Public Policy Chair, Massey College, University of Toronto  • Testimony Transcript •
• Pippa Norris, Professor of Government Relations & Laureate Fellow, U of Sydney, McGuire Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Harvard, Director of Electoral Integrity Project (by videoconference)  • Testimony Transcript •

Watch on ParlVu
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 17

Monday, August 29th, 2016 ~ 2:00 p.m. ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Ed Broadbent, Chair and Founder, Broadbent Institute ~ Submission Brief  • Testimony Transcript • 
• Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, Minister for Democratic Reform, Government of Quebec (2002-2003)  • Testimony Transcript •
• Yasmin Dawood, Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Democracy, Constitutionalism, and Electoral Law, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto (by videoconference)  • Testimony Transcript •

Watch on ParlVu
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 18

Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 ~ 9:30 a.m. ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Jean-Sébastien Dufresne, President, Mouvement Démocratie Nouvelle  • Testimony Transcript • 
• Eric Maskin, Adams University Professor, Department of Economics, Harvard University ~ Submission Brief  • Testimony Transcript • 
• Peter John Loewen, Director, School of Public Policy and Governance and Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto ~ Submission Brief  • Testimony Transcript • 

Watch on ParlVu
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 19

Tuesday, August 30, 2016 ~ 2:00pm ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Louis Massicotte, Professor, Department of Political Science, Laval University ~ Submission Brief  • Testimony Transcript • 
• Melanee Thomas, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Calgary (by videoconference)  • Testimony Transcript •
• Katelynn Northam, Campaigner-Electoral Reform, Leadnow.ca  • Testimony Transcript • Submission Brief

Watch on ParlVu
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 20

Wednesday, August 31, 2016 ~ 9:30am ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Joachim Behnke, Professor, Chair, Political Science, Zeppelin University, Germany • Testimony Transcript • (by videoconference)
• Friedrich Pukelsheim, Professor, Institut für Mathematik, Universität Augsburg, Germany • Testimony Transcript • (by videoconference)
~ Behnke & Pukelsheim Submission Brief 
• Mary Pitcaithly, Convener (by videoconference: Falkirk, UK)  The Electoral Management Board for Scotland  • Testimony Transcript • 
• Andy O’Neill, Head of Electoral Commission, Scotland   • Testimony Transcript • (by videoconference)
~ The Electoral Commission & The Electoral Management Board for Scotland Submission Brief 

Watch on ParlVu
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 21

Wednesday, August 31, 2016 ~ 2:00 pm ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Richard Johnston, Professor, Department of Political Science, The University of British Columbia ~ Submission Brief  • Testimony Transcript • 
• Darrell Bricker, CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs • Testimony Transcript • Submission Brief
• Gordon F. Gibson • Testimony Transcript • Submission Brief

Watch on ParlVu
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 22

Wednesday, August 31, 2016 ~ 6:00 pm ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• Jane Hilderman, Executive Director, Samara • Testimony Transcript • Submission Brief
• Dominic Vézina, Strategic advisor, Institut du Nouveau Monde • Testimony Transcript •  Submission Brief 
• Taylor Gunn, President, Civix  • Testimony Transcript • Submission Brief

Watch on ParlVu
Watch on CPAC

MEETING 23

Thursday, September 1, 2016 ~9:30 am ~ Minutes ~ Evidence Transcript
• David McLaughlin (deputy minister to the New Brunswick Commission on Legislative Democracy, 2003-2005)  • Testimony Transcript • Submission Brief
• Craig Scott, Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University • Testimony Transcript • Submission Brief
• Graham Fox,  President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Research on Public Policy • Testimony Transcript • 

Watch on ParlVu
Watch on CPAC

---

Additional Coverage:
CPAC: WATCH: NEW ZEALAND GREEN LEADER ON PR

---

NOTE: The briefs linked in Scribd below are now also published in PDF form on the ERRE site with the exception of Patrice Dutil (July 26) 

It is also possible to read the Expert’s Briefs on scribd.  Please be aware they are offering a one month free offer so you can read anything on the service for a month.  However if you are not planning on paying for a subscription after that point, you should consider downloading the briefs  you might wish to refer back to at a later date.

---

• Proportional Representation for Canada
• What’s so bad about First Past The Post
• Democracy Primer
• Working for Democracy
• The Popular Vote
• Why Don’t We Have PR Already?
• Stability
• Why No Referendum?
• Electoral System Roundup
• When Canadians Learn about PR with CGP Grey
• Entitlement
• Proportional Representation vs. Alternative Vote
• #ERRÉ #Q Committee
• #ERRÉ #Q Meetings & Transcripts
• Take The Poll ~ #ERRÉ #Q
• Proportionality #ERRÉ #Q 
• The Poll’s The Thing 
• DIY Electoral Reform Info Sessions
• What WE Can Do for ERRÉ
• #ERRÉ today and Gone Tomorrow (…er, Friday)
• Redistricting Roulette 
• #ERRÉ submission Deadline TONIGHT!
• #ERRÉ Submission by Laurel L. Russwurm
• The Promise: “We will make every vote count” #ERRÉ
• FVC: Consultations Provide Strong Mandate for Proportional Representation #ERRÉ
• PEI picks Proportional Representation
• There is only one way to make every vote count #ERRÉ
• Canada is Ready 4 Proportional Representation
• Sign the Petition e-616
• #ProportionalRepresentation Spin Cycle ~ #ERRÉ
• International Women’s Day 2017 ~ #IWD
• An Open Letter to ERRÉ Committee Liberals

and don’t forget to check out the PR4Canada Resources page!

Proportional Representation vs. Alternative Vote

This is the twelfth in the Whoa!Canada: Proportional Representation Series

Getting up to speed on electoral reform can be difficult, so I’d like to share Fair Vote Waterloo’s timely and informative video, Proportional Representation vs. Alternative Vote.

Waterloo City Councillor Diane Freeman moderates a discussion between two of Canada’s leading experts on electoral reform, Barry Kay, Associate Professor of Political Science at Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo, and Dennis Pilon, Associate Professor of Political Science at York University in Toronto.

In the hands of anyone else, this discussion might have not have been suitable for a general audience, but these professors kept it clear and were careful to explain things that might have become too technical.

The question and answer session at the end of the talk was equally informative.

Dennis Pilon (2012)

When I was just starting to learn about electoral reform back in 2012, I heard Dennis Pilon speak at a Fair Vote Waterloo event at Wilfred Laurier University’s Lyle S. Hallman Faculty of Social Work in Kitchener.  Hearing Mr. Pilon again this year,  I was reminded that electoral reform isn’t really as complicated as defenders of the status quo would have us believe.  It’s really only confusing because we are unfamiliar with the alternatives.

Mr. Pilon also explains that different voting systems (including multi-member ridings, Proportional Representation and Alternative Vote) have indeed been employed in parts of Canada throughout our history.

No matter which electoral system we choose, the mechanics of voting will not change dramatically for voters.  We’ll still go to the polling station, get our ballot, then go behind a privacy screen to mark our choice.

The mechanics of voting will hardly change under a Proportional System.

Defenders of the Status Quo often tell us that Canadians understand the system we have now because it is easy.  They say adopting any new system would be more difficult for Canadians than what we have now.  And yet the reality is that we don’t actually understand it.

Many Canadians think when we vote, we’re voting for the Prime Minister.
The reality is that we don’t have presidential elections like our American friends.  We don’t have a say in who the leader will be because we don’t hold Primaries.  In Canada, the members of political parties choose their own leader. And the only Canadians who can actually vote for the Prime Minister are those who live in the presumptive PM’s riding.  The only Canadians who voted for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2015 live in the Quebec riding of Papineau.

Many think our votes are equal and effective.  But when 38,000 voters can elect a Liberal MP but it takes more than 600,000 voters to send a single Green MP to Ottawa, it is very clear that all our votes are not equal.

Some votes are worth more than others in Canada’s Winner-take-all electoral system.

An when 39% of the votes result in majority power, 61% of the voting electorate’s votes have not counted.

39% of the Vote = 100% of the power In 2011 and 2015 Canada

We don’t understand that our vote is supposed to result in our representation in Ottawa.

Sadly Canadian political parties have more control over Members of Parliament than voters do under our current system.

Canadian MPs frequently ignore the wishes of their constituents and vote the way the party dictates.

Many of us believe democracy is about winners and losers.  But it’s not.  It’s about representing us in Parliament.

• Proportional Representation for Canada
• What’s so bad about First Past The Post
• Democracy Primer
• Working for Democracy
• The Popular Vote
• Why Don’t We Have PR Already?
• Stability
• Why No Referendum?
• Electoral System Roundup
• When Canadians Learn about PR with CGP Grey
• Entitlement
• Proportional Representation vs. Alternative Vote
• #ERRÉ #Q Committee
• #ERRÉ #Q Meetings & Transcripts
• Take The Poll ~ #ERRÉ #Q
• Proportionality #ERRÉ #Q 
• The Poll’s The Thing 
• DIY Electoral Reform Info Sessions
• What WE Can Do for ERRÉ
• #ERRÉ today and Gone Tomorrow (…er, Friday)
• Redistricting Roulette 
• #ERRÉ submission Deadline TONIGHT!
• #ERRÉ Submission by Laurel L. Russwurm
• The Promise: “We will make every vote count” #ERRÉ
• FVC: Consultations Provide Strong Mandate for Proportional Representation #ERRÉ
• PEI picks Proportional Representation
• There is only one way to make every vote count #ERRÉ
• Canada is Ready 4 Proportional Representation
• Sign the Petition e-616
• #ProportionalRepresentation Spin Cycle ~ #ERRÉ
• International Women’s Day 2017 ~ #IWD
• An Open Letter to ERRÉ Committee Liberals

and don’t forget to check out the PR4Canada Resources page!

Proportional Representation vs Alternative Vote Debate in Kitchener

What’s the difference between a Proportional Representation voting system and Alternative Vote?

If you’re in or near enough to Waterloo Region and can make it out to Kitchener City Hall tonight (that’s Thursday night), you’ll have a chance to find out from the experts when Waterloo city councillor (and former NDP candidate) Diane Freeman moderates a panel discussion between WLU’s Associate Professor of Political Science, Barry Kay and York University’s Associate Professor of Political Science, Dennis Pilon.

Barry Kay and Dennis Pilon will be talking about representative democracy and electoral reform, with special emphasis on the winner-take-all electoral system Alternative Vote (known variously as Instant Runoff Voting/Preferential Voting/ranked voting) and the many different ways in which Proportional Representation will be achieved.

Alternative Vote is the electoral system the Liberal Party of Canada voted to support at the party’s 2012 Convention.  But the issue was revisited at the party’s next convention, when Liberal Policy Resolution 31 was passed.  This formed the basis ~ almost word for word ~ for the Liberal campaign promise.

In resolution 31, Alternative Vote was referred to as “a preferential ballot,” and as “ranked ballots” in the campaign promise.   And we know that this is the electoral system Prime Minister Justin Trudeau favours, and has been championed by his advisor Robert Asselin of the Liberal think-tank Canada 2020.

But Alternative Vote isn’t a system the results in Proportional Representation.  It’s another winner-take-all voting system, very much like the First Past The Post winner-take-all system we use now.  I see no value in switching from one winner-take-all system to another.

But maybe I’m wrong.  Perhaps Mr. Kay will enlighten me tonight.

After the talk there will be an audience Q & A, and who better to answer you questions than experts of this calibre.

I hope to see you there!