Make Every Vote Count - The Song, version 1

Response to Trudeau dropping electoral reform on Feb 1, 2017

Trudeau said, There’s “no consensus.”

Of course there’s no consensus whether or not to go ahead with an electoral reform that would lead to Proportional Representation (PR): If you're one of those people who looks at national averages, the parties that will lose power are mostly against PR, and the parties that will gain power mostly support PR. But that lack of consensus doesn’t mean that we should be forever satisfied with more false majorities.

In a society with slaves, there’s always going to be no consensus about whether to stop slavery: Strangely enough, the slaves are always going to be the ones against it and the slave owners will always be the ones supporting it. But that "lack of consensus" is not a reason to keep slavery.

If the status quo is unfair you change it – that’s a no-brainer that requires no referendum…unless of course you want to have a no-brainer question on a referendum like the following:

Proposed Referendum Question Based on the Golden Rule: “In a federal election, would you feel “treated fairly” if you were in a party that got results like the NDP and Greens have consistently had for fifty years? (For those results shown in one simple graph, see this link) Yes or no? (If the answer is “no” then we change our system to proportional representation.)”

If such a referendum, based on the Golden Rule, were to take place, would there really be an “augmentation of extreme voices” that Trudeau fears? Is it extreme to want basic fairness? What’s wrong with a loud power struggle if that struggle is for basic justice?

(Above graph sourced from "Is Canada Fair?" at this link. Click  photo to enlarge.)
(Also, it should be noted that the above graph shows national results only. But when you look at regions, election results from all parties are distorted with First Past the Post, as we see in footnote 3 below)

Trudeau said it’s “wrong for Canadians” to  keep the all promises he made in his “electoral platform”

Is it wrong to keep his promise of “making every vote count?”

Trudeau said, There’s “no clear path forward”

How’s this for clarity:  39% of votes should make 39% of seats.

Where’s the lack of clarity?

How’s this for clarity: You promised to “Make Every Vote Count,” people voted for you, so now you should “make every vote count.”

Where’s the lack of clarity?

Canada wouldn’t exactly be entering uncharted territory if we got proportional representation: 85% of OECD countries already have it.

On June 7, 2016, you already used the popular vote percentage (instead of the House of Commons seat percentage) to compose the members of the all party Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform, so why not implement an electoral system that would do the same thing to all of Parliament?

Liberal MPs Kang and Vaughan said: “We have more important things to do.” 

But what if everything you do will simply be undone by the next government in the next policy swing? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a policy trajectory that is stabilized by the future coalition governments that would be formed under proportional representation? Trump, after getting into power with a minority of votes, is undoing every policy that the previous government put in place. Where does that leave your “more important things to do?”

What could be more important than protecting the policy trajectory that you are working so hard to create?

Footnotes:

1. The above quotes were drawn from Canada Electoral Reform: Liberal MPs React to Trudeau Abandoning Promise  Huffington Post, Feb 2, 2017 (Updated Feb 3) Author: Althia Raj

2. Precedent for Parliamentary Committees party composition based on popular vote share in a general election rather than seats in House of Commons:

See this link:  (at “mandate” press Expand) Look for this quote from the Committee mandate (dated June 7, 2016): “…that the Committee be composed of twelve (12) members of which five (5) shall be government members, three (3) shall be from the Official Opposition, two (2) shall be from the New Democratic Party, one (1) member shall be from the Bloc Québécois, and the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands;…”
End Quote

3. Actually, when you look at regions, election results from all parties are distorted with First Past the Post. Here is a more nuanced analysis (written by Wilfred Day):

Myth: PR helps only the NDP and Greens.
Fact: In the 2015 election, in the GTA 396,000 NDP votes were ineffective, disregarded, wasted, and thrown in the garbage can by our skewed winner-take-all system.
But 944,000 Conservative votes in the GTA were ineffective.
And so were 993,000 Liberal votes in Western Canada.
While 235,000 Atlantic NDP voters elected no one, so did 249,000 Atlantic Conservative voters and 384,000 Alberta Liberals.
Across Canada, 8,921,682 votes were ineffective. That’s 50.7% of all votes cast.
But the majority of those disregarded votes were for Liberals and Conservatives: 30% for Conservatives and 26% for Liberals, while 29% were for NDP candidates, 7% for the Bloc Quebecois, and 6% for the Greens.

My response to Wilfred Day: While all of this is true, the national averages, as opposed to regional data, shown in the graph above, speaks for itself. In the national average, it is the smaller parties who lose the most in ANY country that uses the "First Past The Post" voting system. In Canada's case, it's the NDP and Greens who lose most.

Our goal of proportional representation is more important than anger at Trudeau

Our long term goal of getting proportional representation (PR) is more important than a short term response of becoming legitimately angry at Trudeau for dropping PR  on Feb 2, 2017.

All of our messaging should reflect that priority, including in the short term.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not becoming soft on anyone who does not want PR. Instead, I’m just saying that we need to strategize for the long term goal, because that is much more valuable than the value of legitimate anger at this very big bump in the road.

That strategy probably means a long term coalition. Coalitions mean building bridges, not burning them. We can’t burn the bridges that took us years to build, just for the sake of responding emotionally to a very big bump in the road.

To strategize for the longer term, we need the following cool-headed logic:

First, to get critical mass behind our movement in the fastest way possible, we can’t wait for the NDP/Green/Bloc coalition to reach critical mass on their own.

Second, that means building alliances in some MPs within both of the larger parties.

So, what should our messaging be at this disappointing time?

The regressive actions of Trump over the next four years will be giving our PR movement a very strong argument for PR (see below). So for the next four years, we could use the anti-Trump sentiment in the Liberal party to get more and more support from the Liberals.

Perhaps that argument might even work in some of the Conservative circles, given the fact that even some of them were disgruntled at the centralized control that Harper had over the power of individual Conservative MPs.

Below is an example of messaging that will build our non-partisan inroads into the larger parties, instead of burning our bridges:

The rise of Trump makes it more urgent than ever to reform our electoral system. In our present system, a future “Trump in Canada” could win with as little as 35% of the vote. Proportional representation should now be quickly grasped onto as an urgently needed deterrent against that horrifying, but very real, possibility. Therefore we urge all MPs in all parties to return to a strong path towards proportional representation as soon as possible.

Possible slogan:

Without proportional representation, there’s more danger of a Trump in Canada

A Proportional Representation Referendum or Survey Question Based on the Golden Rule

Because of the Dec 1, 2016 recommendation for a referendum in the majority report of the Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform (recommendation #12), we are all now forced to discuss a compromise on our various positions on a referendum on proportional representation. In a previous blog posting (Oct 2, 2016), I argued that a referendum on proportional representation would be detrimental to voter equality. But here is a compromise position:

Any referendum, or survey question (including questions on the govt surveys like the one called “mydemocracy.ca”) on Proportional Representation should be framed as a question on support for the Golden Rule. If not, then it shouldn’t be asked.

Why? Here’s the rationale and logic :

Rationale Step One (From my Oct 2, 2016 blog post):

A referendum on whether to change our Canadian electoral system to the proportional representation* of parties would be a partisan measure of how much people want to protect their parties’ present turf rather than a non-partisan measure of how much people want to provide equal protection to all voters, including those who vote for smaller parties.

If that type of referendum, with a partisan-skewed topic, were to be perceived as having a non-partisan topic (such as the referendum on the prohibition of alcohol in 1898), then it would erroneously** be perceived as “fair,” and would provide a false cover of legitimacy. This erroneous perception would do more damage to the cause of fair voting and voter equality than not having a referendum at all.

Rationale Step Two:

People who benefit from the status quo will always be satisfied with it, regardless of whether or not it is fair. But if, in referendum/survey/poll question, you help those people to empathize with those who suffer from the status quo, you may get a better result from that referendum/survey/poll.

For example, back when slavery was common in the US, if slave owners would have been asked, “Are you satisfied with the current state of democracy,” most would have said, “Yes.” Of course they would have said “yes” because they benefited from the status quo. But at that same time, the results of such a survey might have been different if the question was framed like this: “If you were a slave, would you want to keep the status quo?”

This is analogous to the current discussion on referendum, survey, or poll questions on Proportional Representation.

Possible Alternative Questions Based on the Golden Rule:

Compare these two questions on proportional representation:

1.    Are you satisfied with the status quo?
Or
2.    In a federal election, would you feel “treated fairly” if you were in a party that got results like the NDP and Greens have consistently had for fifty years? (For those results shown in one simple graph, see this link) Yes or no? (If the answer is “no” then we change our system to proportional representation.)

Notice the difference between those two questions. Notice the different approaches they take. Notice that they come from two different standpoints.

I would still prefer no referendum, but if I was forced to compromise, then I would take the position that the referendum question should be based on the Golden Rule: ie “Treat others as you would want them to treat you.”  I would also demand that the wording of the question be decided by a multi-party group.

Principles Should Trump Partisanship

Why Voter Equality?

It’s not the results of polls or referenda which provide the core rationale for upholding the principle of voter equality. The reason we should “make every vote count” and thereby uphold the equal rights of those who vote for smaller parties is not because this principle could win polls or referenda, or that it could win unanimous approval/ consensus in the Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform. Those are not core reasons for upholding the principle of voter equality.

Instead, this principle should be upheld simply because it is the right thing to do. “Rightness” is defined by the golden rule, not by the “majority rule.”

“Majority Rule” can sometimes be poisoned with partisanship, such as would be the case in a referendum on proportional representation. Such a referendum would be a partisan measure of how much people want to protect their parties’ present turf in the status quo -- rather than a non-partisan measure of how much people want to change the status quo so that it protects the equal fair rights of those who vote for smaller parties. If the majority don’t want a redistribution and relinquishment of some of their power in a change that would give all voters their fair share, then that resistance from the majority doesn’t make the majority fair or right. 

Other examples of when the majority has not been fair or right are found in history: Look at slavery, the women’s right to vote, etc.

“The Golden Rule,” as opposed to the Majority Rule, is principle which states “treat others the way you want to be treated.” It is the higher principle because it isn’t susceptible to the fallacy of “appeal to popularity” (argumentum ad populum). That explains why the concept of human rights is based on the Golden Rule, not on Majority Rule.

Voter equality is a human right. The government needs no further argument to keep their promise to “make every vote count” –just as it needed no further argument to take a stand upholding minority rights among ethnic groups.

Why a referendum on proportional representation would be detrimental to voter equality

A referendum on whether to change our Canadian electoral system to the proportional representation* of parties would be a partisan measure of how much people want to protect their parties’ present turf rather than a non-partisan measure of how much people want to provide equal protection to all voters, including those who vote for smaller parties.

If that type of referendum, with a partisan-skewed topic, were to be perceived as having a non-partisan topic (such as the referendum on the prohibition of alcohol in 1898), then it would erroneously be perceived as “fair,”** and would provide a false cover of legitimacy. This erroneous perception would do more damage to the cause of fair voting and voter equality than not having a referendum at all.

Here is what would motivate a proportional representation (PR) referendum voter to be partisan: Since the outcome of a PR referendum would greatly influence how much power a political party would obtain in future elections, it is very likely that a voter’s answer on the referendum question would take that into account and therefore be influenced by their allegiance to their chosen party. Even without taking that into account, that referendum voter would be influenced by those in their chosen party who do take that into account.

**Our current system is unfair because in a winner-take-all election races in individual ridings, the only voters who have the unequal privilege of influencing national election results are those voters who happened to vote for the party candidate who won their riding. Other voters do not get that privilege, hence the inequality.

Details:

How the results of a PR referendum could be erroneously perceived as non-partisan by large numbers of people

There is a probability that a person’s answer on that referendum question will be influenced by their allegiances to their chosen political party. That probability is much higher than if that same person were to answer a referendum question on Prohibition (1898), Conscription (1942), and/or the Charlottetown Accord (1992).

Because of that difference in that probability, it is illusory to think that a referendum on proportional representation is the same as those other referenda.

And yet that illusion is precisely what some people, who have a long term political agenda, want us to believe. These people have money to spend on pushing this illusion.

Others simply believe that illusion because they have not yet been made aware that it is an illusion. There is less money spent on debunking this illusion, than on pushing this illusion.

………………………………………………..

Some corollaries

Because of the above, it is a mistake to have a referendum on PR. It always has been a mistake and it always will be…anywhere. This includes all of the provincial referenda in Canada, and all of the national referenda around the world. The decisions to have these referenda perhaps all involved people falling into the trap of believing the illusion that referenda on PR are not inherently partisan.

New Zealand, and other countries, shouldn’t have had to wait for the political landscape to be strategically correct*** before they switched to PR. No one should have to wait before making their voting system fair. No one should have to wait for basic justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.

*** A ”strategically correct” landscape meant a combination of 1. a minority government situation, and 2. a referendum that they could have a chance of winning (because of that minority gov’t situation). 

The moral basis for protecting the equal voting rights of those who vote for smaller parties

The protection of the rights of voters who vote for smaller parties is based on the logic of the Golden Rule (the principle of reciprocity) which states, “Treat others how you wish to be treated.”

Too few referendum voters will use this logic. The only hope for a referendum on PR is to force voters to use this logic by stating the referendum question in a way that will make it impossible to for voters to avoid that logic.

*Proportional Representation occurs when the percentage of seats a party gets is proportional to the percentage of votes they get.