Ancient Greece is considered to be where “democracy” was born. The word derives from two Greek words, “demos” (people) and “kratia” (rule), combined to mean “the people rule."
Citizens of Athens met together 2,500 years ago to decide on collective government actions.
Their idea of democracy was imperfect. Only adult males participated. Women, resident citizens of other city states and, of course, Athenian slaves were excluded.
About 20 per cent of the population was eligible. The defeat of Athens by Macedonia ended this experiment in governance after just two centuries.
Some 1,100 years ago, another democracy sprang up in Viking Iceland. According to the Icelandic Sagas, the people of Iceland camped in a field and discussed various matters. This was the Althing (“general meeting”). In addition to matters of overall interest, disputes were settled, goods were traded (cheese exchanges for woollen cloth or livestock) births announced, alliances made and marriages arranged.
Self-government ended when Iceland was merged with Norway. (Iceland became independent in 1844.)
Athens and Iceland were direct democracies. In larger countries, this could not work. Instead, regions chose representatives who met together. They would discuss matters, hopefully with the needs of their region in mind.
Many of the world’s nations are “representative democracies.” Of course, not all citizens have the same issues, so disagreements are inevitable. Fishermen, craftsmen, farmers, soldiers, herders and foresters all have different concerns. Respectful discussions, considerate of all opinions determine how well a nation conforms to “the will of the people.”
But the means of selecting representatives also determines how well a state conforms to “the will of the people.” And this is where I wish to begin.
In Canada and in the United States, we share with Great Britain a system in which our representatives, at most levels of government, are chosen by a “first-past-the-post” (FPTP) system. The candidate with the greatest number of votes wins, even this is considerably less than half the ballots counted.
Such a system works fairly well in the U.S. where there are just two parties; two candidates for each legislative seat. However, in the United Kingdom, at least three parties contest every seat; Canada typically has four or more. That means a candidate can win with less than 40 per cent of the vote – occasionally below 35 per cent.
In the 2021 federal election, 27,650,000 people were eligible to vote (out of a population of 38 million). Only 62 per cent bothered to do so. Canadian voter turnout has averaged just over 60 per cent of eligible electors since 2011. Looking at their age profile, just 47 per cent of electors aged 18 to 24 voted, increasing to 75 per cent for electors aged 65 to 74.
Politicians should pay more attention to the concerns of older folk!
But back to low participation, since 1956 just one British Columbia provincial election was won with over 50 per cent of voters. In 2001, Liberals took 77 of B.C.’s 79 seats with 57 per cent of the vote, leaving two Members of the Legislature to represent the 43 per cent of B.C. voters who didn’t vote Liberal – how FPTP can distort the political map.
In 2015, Justin Trudeau promised this will be the last General Election held under FPTP. It's likely why voter participation rose across all ages in that election. It was my main reason for voting Liberal in 2015. The largest increase was in ages 18 to 24, 57 per cent of them voted. (Some may have been attracted by the promise to legalize cannabis.)
Alternatives to first-past-the-post seek to better align parliamentary representation with the popular vote.
There are many possibilities, all approaching proportional representation (PR) by varying degrees. I believe there is a better reason to change our voting system to reflect “the will of the people.”
In the past, members of our federal and provincial parliaments debated passionately. After hours they got together for a cordial dinner and a glass of wine. Our various parliaments have become toxic workplaces marked by behaviour that had members ejected by the speaker. (“The House has the power to discipline whoever is guilty of a misconduct, which it considers to amount to a breach of privilege or contempt.”)
Following the political example, the toxicity spilled into the general population with antisemitic activity often targeting Jewish-owned business, anti-Muslim, anti-Asian demonstrations plus people targeting LGBT folk, abortion providers, etc. We have seen signs on vehicles reading “F--K TRUDEAU.” None of this is acceptable in Canada.
Political polarization can be reduced by adopting some variant of proportional representation. (There are several, just ask Google.)
Most countries using proportional representation are governed by coalitions of two or more parties. That offers two advantages.
1. Changes in government policy tend to be gradual, rarely extending to complete reversal. This saves legislative time and money. In addition, reversal inevitably angers large segments of the population.
During Ireland’s 2020 election, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin told reporters: “Ireland has avoided the hyperpolarization that characterizes the United Kingdom and the United States. And that’s a good thing. I don’t believe in a left-right polarized divide. I think that would be damaging to our economic model. We have a very diverse Dáil (parliament). The system we have now is one that has given effective government over the decades."
This election produced a coalition between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. They worked across party lines, even rotating the role of Taoiseach (prime minister) halfway through their term.
2. It would be hard to form a coalition with another party if you had insulted their leader, or individual members and policies during the campaign. That should discourage the selection of extreme leaders and candidates, or adopting extreme policies.
One example of proportional representation-linked election is the “single transferrable vote.” During voting, you choose your favoured candidate, but also indicate second and third choices. (But you don’t have to.) If nobody surpasses 50 per cent of the vote, the bottom-ranked candidate drops off and their second and third choices are distributed to the remaining candidates. That can be repeated until someone surpasses 50 per cent.
The winning candidate is the first choice of many voters, but also acceptable to others. Since extreme candidates are unlikely to attract second or third choice votes, parties are unlikely to nominate them.
A variant of this system counts the votes. If nobody achieves 50 per cent, a second election is held, perhaps a week later. Only the top two candidates are on the ballot. That’s how the French president is elected.
In Europe, only Britain has FPTP voting. All other countries adopted some form of proportional representation.
Objectors often point to Italy and Israel as examples of proportional representation leading to unstable governments. I would suggest this has more to do with the character of Italians and Israelis than their voting system.
Something needs to change in Canada. Ontario’s government is famously reluctant to reveal the costs of any of their projects, leading to scarcely believable cost overruns – recently with respect to the Therme Spa project on Toronto’s waterfront, and the relocation of the Ontario Science Centre. Stay tuned for the cost of nuclear power stations.
The leaders of Canada’s opposition party and of Alberta’s government have both criticized the prime minister for being “weak” and for meeting President-elect Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago recently.
At this time, our interests are best served with all Canadian politicians uniting against Mr. Trump’s threat to impose 25 per cent import tariffs on all Canadian goods. We must applaud Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford for loudly supporting the Liberal prime minister in opposing them.
All Canadians must stand together against Mr. Trump’s bullying, whatever our domestic political differences.
Our future prosperity depends on this!
