Stories

The Supreme guide to electoral reform

Jason VandenBeukel
January 12, 2016
The Supreme Court told the Harper government in 2014 that its plans for Senate reform would so fundamentally change how Canada is governed that it could not proceed without a constitutional amendment. Now the Trudeau government wants to do something even more radical – change how we elect the House of Commons. This doesn’t require a constitutional change but surely something so elemental to our democracy at least requires a national referendum. Jason VandenBeukel explains…
Stories

The Supreme guide to electoral reform

Jason VandenBeukel
January 12, 2016
The Supreme Court told the Harper government in 2014 that its plans for Senate reform would so fundamentally change how Canada is governed that it could not proceed without a constitutional amendment. Now the Trudeau government wants to do something even more radical – change how we elect the House of Commons. This doesn’t require a constitutional change but surely something so elemental to our democracy at least requires a national referendum. Jason VandenBeukel explains…
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the Liberal government’s controversial commitment to replace the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system with a more representative voting system is that they actually seem committed to following it through. Many political parties, both in Canada and around the world, have campaigned on promises of electoral reform, only to quietly shelve the issue once they managed to win government through the distorting powers of FPTP. After all, why change the system which gave you 100 percent of the power with just 39 percent of the vote?

But Liberal House Leader Dominic Leblanc told CTV on December 28 that the new government is determined to deliver on their election promise. What’s more, he pretty well ruled out a referendum on it, which is one of the strongest possible indicators that the Liberals really do intend to bring an end to FPTP in Canada. Recent efforts at electoral reform in Prince Edward Island, Ontario, and British Columbia were all quashed when the question was put directly to voters. Whatever its flaws, most Canadians seem quite fond of the current voting system, which means a referendum would likely torpedo the Liberals’ plan.

The Conservatives certainly seem to think so, judging from their strenuous opposition to the Liberals’ vow to change the electoral system through Parliament. The Tories are well aware that they generally do much better under FPTP, which punishes the divided political left and rewards the united right, than they would under any other system. Supporting a referendum which dooms electoral reform to failure, therefore, is obviously in their best interest. Even so, the Conservatives’ main argument is hard to ignore: if FPTP is too undemocratic to elect our House of Commons, then how can a government elected through FPTP claim it has the democratic legitimacy to change the electoral system?

What is missing from all the arguments over electoral reform, and a referendum on electoral reform, is any notice of the fact that our Supreme Court dealt with a very similar question less than two years ago. When the Harper government asked if it would be constitutionally acceptable to introduce Senate elections and term limits to the upper house, the Court ruled that “elections for the nominations of Senators would change our Constitution’s architecture, by endowing Senators with a popular mandate which is inconsistent with the Senate’s fundamental nature and role as a complementary legislative chamber of sober second thought.” In other words, any reform that would significantly change the way in which Senators are selected can only be made by amending the Constitution, which effectively meant that there could be no such change.

The same constitutional logic could and should be applied to the House of Commons. The Senate, despite the beating its reputation has taken over the last few years, is so important in the eyes of the Supreme Court that any major changes to its composition require the approval of all the provinces. If that is the case, then surely the way we select the House of Commons, the elected chamber which provides us with the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and the government, deserves at least as high a level of democratic ratification.

Everyone agrees that electoral reform will fundamentally change the way our government works. One-party governments will almost certainly be replaced by coalitions, and elections will likely be more frequent and more widely contested. And while the Constitution explicitly gives the federal Parliament the power to change the way in which the House of Commons is elected, the logic underpinning the Supreme Court’s direction on Senate reform cannot be ignored. This isn’t just about tinkering on the edges of the democratic process; electoral reform will completely reshape our political system. The argument which the Supreme Court justices made in their decision on Senate reform, in which they developed an all too brief respect for the intent of the people who wrote our Constitution in the first place, is quite clear: changing the rules of the political game in such a significant way is much too big a responsibility for one government or one party.

Some Senate reformers would argue that Harper’s proposed changes were constitutionally valid and the Court invented an argument against them. There may be truth in that, but the Court’s underlying message was that our core democratic institutions should not be changed by Parliament alone. So it is with the electoral system. A change of this importance and magnitude needs to be made in a manner consistent with its far-reaching effects. Electoral reform that is simply pushed through Parliament by the Liberals and over the objections of the opposition is itself more undemocratic than FPTP could ever be. There is only one democratically legitimate way to change the system: let the people decide.

~

Jason VandenBeukel is currently working on a PhD in Canadian Politics at the University of Toronto. He also holds an MA in Political Science and a BA in History from Brock University. He has previously contributed a number of articles to The Prince Arthur Herald.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

The Housing Market Isn’t Racist. Blame Your Parents Instead

Diversity may be our strength. But it is now alarmingly commonplace in Canada to blame any perceived diversity in outcomes between racial groups on vaguely-defined “systemic racism” or “white supremacy”. Case in point: the Federal Housing Advocate’s allegations of rampant racism in Canada’s housing market, and the need to address it with outlandishly disruptive policies. Delving deep into Statistics Canada’s ample supply of race-based data, Peter Shawn Taylor considers the evidence for racism in Canadian housing, education, income and poverty statistics, and finds a more convincing explanation much closer to home.

Young Offenders: Meet the Angry Socialists Poisoning Our Politics

Social media is widely blamed for poisoning the public conversation on a range of topics – especially politics and contentious social questions. But there’s a possibly even more dangerous force growing on the internet: an online community of YouTubers and livestreamers spouting far-left dogma, praising political violence and denigrating their opponents as evil, far-right fascists. Using fallacious arguments, psychological manipulation and overheated rhetoric, they seek to radicalize young people and convert them to their cause. Millions are tuning in, and mainstream “progressive” politicians are jumping on their bandwagons. Noah Jarvis profiles three of these socialist crusaders and explains why they are such a threat.

The Worrisome Wave of Politicized Prosecutions

Shaping criminal charges, bail decisions or prison sentences around an accused person’s political or religious beliefs is utterly odious – a hallmark of tinpot tyrannies and totalitarian hellholes. Such practices have no place in any constitutional nation, let alone a mature democracy that presents itself as a model to the world. But that is increasingly the situation in Canada, writes Gwyn Morgan. Comparing the treatment of protesters accused of minor infractions to those of incorrigible criminals who maim and kill, Morgan finds a yawning mismatch that suggests political motivations are increasingly a factor in today’s criminal justice system.

More from this author

Jordan Peterson: The man who reignited Canada’s culture war

The last bastion of liberalism, the Economist recently said of Canada. While the rest of the world was embracing reactionary populism, we were a progressive light in the growing darkness. What they missed, though, was a YouTube video by a University of Toronto professor declaiming new laws banning old words in the name of transgender rights. Millions of hits later, Jordan Peterson looks like the vanguard of a counterattack on political correctness and the spark that reignited the culture wars in Canada. Jason VandenBeukel pokes the fire for C2C.

The facade of Conservative unity

Delegates at last weekend’s Conservative Party of Canada national convention in Vancouver voted nearly two-to-one in favour scrapping the party’s traditional opposition to gay marriage. It was just the latest of many losses for the social conservative wing of the party. They will probably get over this one too, writes Jason VandenBeukel, but the next leader of the party had better come up with something to keep them in the big blue tent, or risk its collapse.

Share This Story

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.