Roundup: Monsef’s problematic principles

I was set to delve into the eight principles that Maryam Monsef laid out as part of what she plans to work on the electoral reform proposals around, when it turned out that Peter Loewen went ahead and tracked which of the three most likely voting systems corresponded to each principle. Suffice to say, not one system fit with each, which gives rise to the notion that Monsef will have to treat some principles more than others. Now, the NDP were outraged in QP yesterday that proportionality was not on this list of principles, though one could argue that the first principle, that votes are translated into election results without significant distortions, could be an endorsement of proportionality, except of course that it’s a perception problem based on a logical fallacy, which makes its inclusion as a principle to be a problem. I also have a problem with the inclusion of the third principle of using the system to increase diversity. That’s not a problem of the electoral system so much as it’s a problem of how parties seek out and nominate candidates. Most parties are getting better at this, but we should beware that including this principle would give rise to list systems, which in turn give rise to unaccountable token MPs in a two-tiered system. Monsef’s eighth principle, that the system needs to build consensus, is also problematic. Why? Because our system is built to hold people to account, and consensus makes this problematic. If everyone is accountable, then no one is accountable. Of course, I would remind everyone that there’s nothing actually wrong with our system as it is – what’s wrong is our crisis of civic literacy, which means that people don’t understand how the system works, leading them to assume that it’s broken – particularly if they succumb to sore loser tendencies and complain about things like “wasted votes.” If I may be so bold, Monsef is probably better off tinkering with the existing system to encourage greater participation (as we saw examples of in the last election, such as campus polling stations) and education rather than this attempt to rethink the system which will please no one and ensure that everything is worse off than it is now. We don’t have to break the system even further. We can stop this train before it goes off that cliff.

Good reads:

  • MP Rob Oliphant, who chaired the advisory committee on assisted dying, says the bill currently isn’t good enough. Senators are also concerned it is not Charter compliant.
  • Jon Kay talks about the underlying problems with places like Attawapiskat, and it may not be what you think.
  • The Supreme Court of Canada struck down two more Conservative “tough on crime” laws, related to mandatory minimums and credit for time served.
  • Bill Morneau is promising more action on tax evasion after a G20 finance meeting.
  • Stéphane Dion released a redacted human rights report on Saudi Arabia, which tells us pretty much what we expected it would.
  • Those proposed changes to the Liberal Party constitution put even more power in the leader’s office. Because nothing could possibly go wrong there, right?
  • The RCMP spent $16 million over four years to design a refugee screening process that turned out to be a giant failure.
  • Jane Taber profiles Conservative MP Rachael Harder’s nomination race and eventual electoral victory.
  • Kady O’Malley writes about conscience votes, and why they always tend to be religiously motivated.
  • Andrew Coyne fears where the assisted dying legislation will all lead.

Odds and ends:

While at the Perimeter Institute, a smartass reporter asked Trudeau to explain quantum computing. So he did.

One thought on “Roundup: Monsef’s problematic principles

  1. “Approval Voting”, is an excellent alternative you and Loewen haven’t considered. With Approval Voting, everyone can simply support (vote for, approve of) as many candidates as they like in a single-winner constituency. The winner is simply the candidate with the most votes. It’s surprising it wasn’t better recognized and adopted long ago, though it seems that it was used in Greece for a while in the 1800’s. See lots more about it at http://electology.org/approval-voting

    I’d say it fits well with all 8 criteria. It:
    1) is fairly translated into results with little confusion or distortion
    2) avoids the “spoiler” problem and allows the voter to have influence by defining their own “dividing line” and supporting both their first choice and any viable candidate they like more than those they don’t like
    3) makes it easier for newcomers to get a fair chance at being voted in
    4) is not more complex than first-past-the-post, and works with current election software which needs to handle council races where there are multiple winners and you can vote for multiple candidates
    5) is very user friendly and accessible due to its simplicty, both for voters and for election officials
    6) maintains localized links between constituents and their members
    7) is no harder to secure and verify than first-past-the-post. This is in contrast to the three systems you discuss, in which it is common for there to be very tight margins during the elimination procedure, thus making the election more vulnerable to manipulations of small numbers of votes
    8) most of all, makes politicians simply want voters to approve of them, and thus promotes consensus, common ground and positive campaigning.

    Approval voting would be great for Canada, as well as for many other parts of the world. As noted, like all voting systems, it isn’t perfect, and doesn’t provide all the benefits of proportional representation. But it also nicely avoids the significant complications of MMP and other proportional representation approaches.

Comments are closed.