With BC’s electoral reform referendum on the horizon, and vague promises around it from the Ontario NDP as the election draws to a close, we’re apparently talking proportional representation again. Sigh. Over the weekend, Jean Chrétien made the particular case in his idiosyncratic way that the reason why it’s a bad system, and the core of his argument is that it doesn’t force people to engage with voters. Door knocking to win a riding? Democratic. Being a party wonk who gets in because they’re on a list? Not very democratic. It’s a way of looking at the practical inputs and outputs of the system that most people gloss over when they whinge about the popular vote (which, I will remind you, is a logical fallacy because general elections are not one single event, but 338 separate but simultaneous events) and how “unfair” it seems when viewed through this skewed lens.

As for this referendum in BC, it’s a bit of a dog’s breakfast with its two-stage vote – the first vote as to whether to keep First-Past-the-Post or to adopt a system of proportional representation; the second stage being to choose between three systems – mixed-member proportional with some regional weighting, dual-member proportional, and a hybridized system where urban ridings would have single-transferable-votes, and rural ones would have some kind of proportional system akin to MMP. But there are problems with all three choices – the regional weighting associated with their version of MMP exists nowhere in the world so we don’t know the outcomes; the dual-member proportional is a theoretical system dreamed up by some University of Alberta system that exists nowhere in the world and we really have no idea if or how it would actually work; and the split urban-rural system would never pass constitutional muster. If BC’s attorney general thinks that the Supreme Court would allow different voting systems based on where you lived, I suspect that he’s dreaming, and it would have to be one hell of an excuse to try and save this with Section 1 of the Charter (being that it’s a reasonable curtailing of your rights and freedoms in a free and democratic society). So, good luck with that.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne is no fan of the two-stage referendum and would rather simply prefer a single ballot where status-quo was an option like they did in PEI. Where Coyne goes wrong is when he said this as successful in PEI – it really wasn’t. They had to go some five ballots before a PR system squeaked through by the narrowest of margins with unusually low voter turnout for a province that typically takes voting very seriously. Colby Cosh, meanwhile, quite properly lambastes the whole affair as being completely gamed, because aside from the way in which they’re dubiously counting the second ballot if one system doesn’t get a majority from the start, there are still too many unknowns in the three proposals, including whether the proportional lists would be open or closed – a very huge consideration in how PR systems work, and which goes to the heart of holding governments to account in these systems. In other words, this BC referendum is shaping up to be a boondoggle from the start, which is not good for our democracy in the slightest.

Good reads:

• Justin Trudeau stood firm in the face of demands to accelerate retaliation, while also facing yet more concerns about Supply Management after his talk of “flexibility.”
• Meanwhile, there is talk about what kinds of measures the government could take to help the steel industry cope with the imposition of tariffs.
• Here are a few more details on the retention bonus being paid to two Kinder Morgan executives for shepherding the pipeline expansion through a change of ownership.
• The Liberals appear to be backing down and allowing more time at committee for the elections reform bill to get more scrutiny.
• Ahmed Hussen spent the day in Washington to meet with officials about the irregular border crossing issue.
• Another attempted amendment to legislate delay in implementing legalized cannabis was defeated in the Senate.
• Here’s a look at the prospect of anti-G7 protesters, and the state of leftist movements in Quebec.
• The plastics industry is looking to 2030 and 2040 on timelines for eliminating waste, and at ways of improving recycling along the way.
• Conservative MP Todd Doherty is learning that intentionally vague language in his private member’s bill isn’t endearing him to senators.
• Martine Ouellet will step down as leader of the Bloc next week.
• Paul Wells reviews Ian Brodie’s book about the Harper PMO and the notion that prime ministers in Canada are friendly dictators.
• Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at why party leaders get so antsy when asked about possible coalitions while on the campaign trail.
• Kevin Carmichael digs into the IMF report on Canada’s competitiveness, and suggests that maybe it’s time we have a real review of our tax system.
• Chantal Hébert ponders the future of the Bloc in the wake of Martine Ouellet’s inglorious departure.
• John Geddes points to the circularity of problems facing the Trudeau government, and perennial challenges that simply update their details.

Odds and ends:

New from me in the Law Timesis a look at the white-collar crime provisions that are buried in the omnibus budget bill.

Also online are my Law Timesstories on cannabis legalisation affecting employers, the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on right to strike, and company takeovers.

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.