Declaration of Voter's Rights

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Ontario Liberal Karma: What Goes Around, Comes Around

The Ontario Liberal Party experienced its own form of Karma last week by losing not only the election, but official party status.

In 2007, the McGuinty Liberals promised a referendum on electoral reform. They held the referendum but posed a question that few would understand, including myself. They also did not provide funding or an educational program in inform people the importance of ER; it was designed to fail.

In the Ontario election, 52% of the votes casted were ineffective or wasted as result of our first-past-the-post electoral system. The Liberal suffered the most of the four main parties with 89% of their supporters’ votes being wasted.

Comparison of Ontario Election 2018
Ontario is now saddled by another false majority government, this time it’s the PCs that won the brass ring. Ontario has not had a true majority government supported by the voters since 1937 when Hepburn’s Liberals won a majority with 51.6% of the popular vote.

“The case for proportional representation is fundamentally the same as that for representative democracy. Only if an assembly represents the full diversity of opinion within a nation can its decisions be regarded as the decisions of the nation itself." Encyclopedia Britannica 

The Ford’s Conservatives enjoy a false majority via an outdated electoral system, therefore it is unlikely we will see any initiative to make the next election fairer to voters. 

Guest Blogger Dan Desson

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Reducing Policy Lurch

John Thorton and Todd McKay wrote about the Saskatchewan Transportation Company (STC) issue in the May 12 Shellbrook Chronicle. Together they provide an educational contrast.
John's letter presents a history of the STC under the Sask Party. Initially, a decrease in fares produced an increase in revenue. Yet, fare increases made it "too expensive for nearly 100,000 riders in five short years." John emphasizes that the STC is and should remain a public service.
Todd's article presents the case that the STC "didn't serve everyone even though we all subsidized it through our taxes."  He gives the example of the AV Transit company.  It may offer more timely and less expensive service between Martensville and Saskatoon. Todd concludes the STC is best privatized.
John's and Todd's writing reveal the potential policy lurches possible in our first-past-the-post electoral system. Imagine the next Saskatchewan government is pro-public services. We could lurch back to a public bus service.
When the seats in government are in proportion to the way people voted, there are fewer policy lurches. Proportional representation (PR) creates a cooperative decision-making process.  PR produces sustainable and durable policy outcomes. This is why over 80 democracies have evolved to some form of PR.
Evidence heard by the all-party electoral reform committee (ERRE) overwhelmingly favoured PR. Find your MP at  Ask them to be a democracy hero by voting to accept the ERRE report at the end of May. Let's make every vote count federally, then provincially.
Nancy Carswell, Co-spokesperson Fair Vote Saskatchewan
Shellbrook, Saskatchewan

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Proportional Representation and Pharmacare

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau didn’t just break a promise to the Canadian people when he recently abandoned electoral reform. He also abandoned his country to a costly pharmaceutical system that favours powerful drug companies at the expense of taxpayers, an advocacy group says.

Trudeau’s "appalling" reversal on February 1 makes it nearly impossible to achieve a vastly more efficient pharmacare program, despite 90 percent of Canadians wanting such a system, says Saskatchewan Fair Vote Canada (FVSK). "The majority of Canadians expressed their desire to see a more cooperative and inclusive form of politics in the House of Commons," when they voted for electoral reform, said FVSK co-spokesperson Lee Ward. But Trudeau’s flip-flop in support of the current electoral system will inhibit the formation and enactment of policies in the public’s interest.

National pharmacare programs already exist in advanced democracies with proportional representation – a more representative system achievable through electoral reform. Thus pharmacare systems in Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland control drug costs and save their taxpayers huge sums of money. In Canada, that money goes to drug companies with lobbyists in Ottawa.

"Anyone’s spending is somebody else’s income," said Bob Evans, a Professor Emeritus with the University of British Columbia’s Vancouver School of Economics. "Universal pharmacare could save billions to Canadians, so there are powerful corporate interests that will do everything they can to make sure it does not happen."

An Angus Reid poll found 91 percent of Canadians support the idea of a national pharmacare program. But the national electoral system fails to represent Canadians' wishes, says the FVSK’s Nancy Carswell.

"If we had proportional representation, we could better turn this pharmacare concern into policy," Carswell adds. "Instead, we have a flip-flop. A two percent change of the vote can mean a 100 percent change in power and a counter-productive, 180-degree change in policy direction."

By contrast, proportional representation fosters political consensus-building, which in turn produces policies and laws that recognize "the rights and concerns of most Canadians," Ward says. The current systems disproportionately serves "a narrow subsection of electorally significant voters in a few key swing ridings."

Canada’s drug costs have quadrupled since the 1990s, according to study of the nation’s healthcare costs. Scandinavia’s pharmacare programs have prevented such increases, writes Anu Partanen, author of the acclaimed book The Nordic Theory of Everything.

"The most obvious advantage is that it helps the country control health-care costs by weeding out expensive yet ineffective treatments, or drugs that have a more affordable alternative," says Partanen.

Lead Now has a campaign focusing on Liberal MPs at

FVSK encourages all voters to connect with their MP and insist the government keep its electoral reform promise to make every vote count. MP contact information available at

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Proportional Representation and Environmental Protection

Prince Albert, Saskatchewan – March 9, 2017 – Prime Minster Justin Trudeau repeatedly stated he would make 2015 the last federal election using first-past-the-post.  Fair Vote Saskatchewan (FVSK) intends to hold him to his promise. 

Canada uses first-past-the-post to elect members to the House of Commons.  This system works when only two parties are on the ballot.  With more than two parties, the winner does not need a majority of votes.  Since 1921, Canadian governments have been told that using first-past-the-post is undemocratic.

Trudeau's Electoral Reform Committee (ERRE) heard over 80% of its expert witnesses and open mic speakers endorse proportional representation to make every vote count. In September 2016, the Qu’Appelle Valley Environmental Association (QVEA) presented a brief to the ERRE.  It was titled "Protecting Canada's Environment Requires a Voting System Based on Proportional Representation (PR)."

The QVEA brief states that countries with proportional representation are stable and robust.  When a coalition government is formed, it is not as easy to lobby for or ram through a particular agenda.  For example, in 2012 the Harper government's phony majority easily gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act. 

If the 2011 election had used proportional representation, the seats in the House of Commons would reflect how people voted.  The Conservatives would have had 127 seats not 166.  The 97 New Democrats, 56 Liberals, 17 Bloc Québécois, and 11 Greens seats could have voted down all or any of the omnibus bills.

The QVEA brief observes, "Environmental protection and ecological sustainability is less likely to be marginalized with [proportional representation], including when it involves a coalition government, than under a government like that of Harper which got majority power from minority support."

Co-chair of QVEA Jim Harding emphasizes, “Prime Minister to be, Trudeau, promised that we’d never again use the slanted, unfair, first-past-the-post voting system. We believed him. The all-party Standing Committee came together as non-partisans and did their work. Thousands of us presented and it became clear that it was time for Canadian democracy to grow-up and adopt a proportional system specifically designed to work for us. Such a system is more likely to bring the issues about which Canadians care, including environmental ones, into mainstream discussions. It would depolarize regional politics and better serve the country moving forward. Perhaps Trudeau wanted another outcome, but the Liberals are now making poor excuses for ignoring what Canadians said. There can be no excuses for Canada maintaining an unfair voting system.”

Co-spokesperson of FVSK Nancy Carswell said, "I had this naïve idea that if I told my MP about an environment issue based in evidence, then they would act.  I've realized we don't have government regulated industry but industry regulated government.  For example, documents obtained through the Access to Information Act show that the pipeline industry influenced the changes to Navigable Waters Protection Act.  The fossil fuel industry wants to hold us hostage.  Proportional representation is the best way to free ourselves and foster renewable energy."

FVSK encourages people call their MP daily ( and/or visit their MP monthly to hold them to their promise of electoral reform that makes every vote count.

Also, Leadnow is running a Vote Better campaign asking people to lobby their MP to be a "Democracy Hero" at >

Fair Vote Saskatchewan (FVSK) and the Qu’Appelle Valley Environmental Association (QVEA) believe that electoral reform with proportional representation would result in a fairer government and better environmental protection.  As shown here, although the Liberals could have formed the government in 2015, they would not have the majority of seats requiring them to collaborate.

FVSK Press Release

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Dorito Democracy

The book The Dorito Effect proposes that the cause of our obesity epidemic lies in the food industry's fixation on mouth taste. Why do I specify mouth taste? Apparently other parts of our digestion system have "tastes" too. If these other tastes are not satisfied, we experience the Dorito effect and one Dorito becomes countless Doritos.

There is a parallel here to voting When we vote, we get a taste of power. Sadly, first-past-the-post voting is the equivalent of "mouth taste. It does not satisfy the needs of our democratic system. We can vote countless times and never count.

In 2016, the Electoral Reform Committee heard 88% of its expert witnesses and 87% of the people who stepped up to the mic say they believed a system of proportional representation would satisfy our democratic system.

In 2017, let's give our democratic system the proportional representation it needs to be healthy. Connect with our new Minister of Democratic Reform Karina Gould and tell her you want to experience how democracy tastes with a Canadian-made system of proportional representation. Email or phone 613-995-0881.

After experiencing a healthy democracy for a few elections, we could ask ourselves then if we wanted to return to a Dorito democracy.

Nancy Carswell, Saskatchewan Chapter Fair Vote Canada Co-spokesperson
Shellbrook, Saskatchewan

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Show Confidence in Proportional Representation

Where do you want your doctor to place their confidence? In tradition, authority, or reason?  While tradition and authority do have roles in decision making, I want my doctor's decisions to be based in reason.

In Canada, we have a tradition of using first-past-the-post (FPTP) for electing our leaders.  The candidate in the electoral riding with the most votes wins.  The media authoritatively inform us that a party has won a majority.  They ignore the fact that the party has a majority of seats rather than a majority of votes.  

Repeatedly, FPTP produces a phony majority giving all power to one party so in the next election people vote them out rather than voting a party in.  This means a new government spends its energy and our tax dollars undoing what the last government did; only to have this process repeated when they are inevitably voted out. 

Countries with proportional representation avoid this counter-productive in-out pattern plus they produce high grades for voter turnout, women and visible minorities in government, income equality and strong economies, and, my priority, environmental protection.

The Liberals are mailing you an electoral reform postcard.  When you receive yours, place your confidence in reason, not tradition or authority.  Our democracy needs a system of proportional representation that means 40% of the vote results in 40% of the seats in the House of Commons—not 54% of the seats and 100% of the power. 

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Submission to the House of Commons’ Special Committee on Electoral Reform (11-9-16)

This is Fair Vote Canada Saskatchewan Chapter's co-spokesperson's Lee Ward's individual submission to the Electoral Reform Committee.  It ends, "Future generations will say we did a good thing introducing a proportional voting system.  They may just wonder, what took us so long." 

            At the very dawning of Political Science, Aristotle observed that the primary challenge for any democracy is to produce a government that reflects and aims toward the common good, that is serves the whole community or polis; and not just a particular faction, even the majority (Aristotle, Politics, 1280a6-12).  Although our idea of democracy differs in important respects from what Aristotle knew—we favour representation rather than Athenian-style direct democracy—the essential question Aristotle asked remains a timeless challenge to friends of democracy today: Does the way we elect our representatives serve the common good of the whole community?  In Canada I believe the answer is clearly no.  The problem is our outdated, distorted, and inequitable First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) or single member plurality (SMP) electoral system.  The problem is clear and so too is the solution. Canada needs to adopt an improved electoral system based on the principle of Proportional Representation (PR).  My preferred option is a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system with regional “top up” seats that combines elements of the Scottish, New Zealand and German electoral systems with features unique to the Canadian context.  Given that the empirical and comparative research outlining the technical aspects of these various electoral systems is widely and publicly available, in this brief I will focus primarily on the philosophical, psychological and normative dimensions of Canada’s electoral reform debate.
            Perhaps it will help us understand our condition today, if we step back for a moment to consider the historical progress of democracy in the past.  In the 19th and 20th centuries the democratic movement was animated mainly by the battle to expand the franchise to previously marginalized groups, especially the poor, racial, linguistic and religious minorities, as well as women and young adults.  These were heroic struggles that helped push forward the historical unfolding of the idea of human freedom and equality central to democracy.  In our time, in the 21st century, there is a new challenge confronting democracy.  It is a struggle less heroic than the suffrage movements of the past, but in some respects no less important.   I believe that it is our task in our time to transform an electoral system we inherited from past centuries when these ideals of equality were only very dimly perceived, and to redesign the great electoral machine of democracy in order to give substantive, concrete meaning to the democratic principle of treating every vote equally.  In the past we strove to expand the orbit of democratic rights.  Now we live in an age of enhanced social technologies that make possible the practical realization of these rights in an electoral system that truly empowers our citizens.  In this respect, changing the voting system is part of a larger process of democratic reform that could include reconsidering our voter enumeration process, as well as thinking more deeply about mandatory voting, the possibility of electronic voting and expansion of the franchise to sixteen year olds.  But make no mistake reforming the voting system is the most important and urgent task before us.
            We need to reflect upon the nature of the problem in our democracy.  It is well known that in modern Canadian history our putative “majority governments” rarely have been elected by the majority of votes cast in a federal election.  In our system a party that wins 39% of the vote effectively wins all of the power in our Parliament.  In every riding the candidate that wins a plurality of the vote acquires 100% of the right to represent the constituents in that riding.  In a multi-party democracy such as Canada has been for nearly a century, the FPTP or SMP model practically guarantees that the “winner” of an election has won the support of only a part, and typically not even a majority of the voters.  When you consider that a majority government in Canada may have as little as 39% of the votes cast in an election in which only 2/3 of the eligible voters even vote, then you wind up with governments that have acquired the active support of a subset of only 25% of the electorate.  How can this be democratic?
            The effect of this situation is what can only be identified as a democratic deficit.  Declining voter turnout in Canada to rates among the lowest of any advanced industrial democracy suggests that FPTP increasingly fails to meet the democratic expectations of 21st century Canadians.  Canadians expect their parliament to be more inclusive, more cooperative and more representative of our diverse country than ever before.  Hyper-partisanship and the micro-targeting of small demographics in select swing ridings are the direct product of our flawed single member plurality electoral system.  We have seen historically how sentiments of regional and sectional alienation flourish due to the legitimacy problem that arises when one party with less than true majority support imposes its mandate on the entire country.  Keep in mind also that in our parliamentary system we have no meaningful form of separation of powers or checks and balances on the power of the House of Commons.
            Proportional representation is the solution to the problems of our electoral system.  PR is adaptable to almost any context including Canada’s unique characteristics.  The central idea of PR is that it ensures that elections produce governments that reflect the values and choices of a voting majority by providing representation in proportion to votes cast. In a PR system applied to a multiparty democracy such as Canada, it is unlikely that one party will ever “win” all the power and thus our national politics will demonstrate greater consensus, power sharing and policies that represent Canada’s diversity.

            My preferred option for reform is MMP because I believe that it is best adapted to the features of Canadian political life.  I would recommend reducing the number of single-member ridings and establishing “top up” seats set by region that would be won by parties on the basis of the proportional share of their vote in the region.  I would prefer that members elected by the regional top up seat route be drawn from an open party nominating process or who qualify as being the losing candidates with the largest vote share among that party’s single member constituency contests.
            I believe that this or a similar form of PR would satisfy all of the guiding principles outlined in the public statement of the Committee Directorate.   It would ensure Effectiveness and Legitimacy by reducing the distortions of FPTP and better translate voter intentions into seats in Parliament.  MMP will also encourage a greater sense of democratic Engagement as voters will feel that every vote actually counts because for all intents and purposes practically every vote will go towards the election of a member of parliament.  Comparative research indicates that turnout increases in countries that adopt PR.  MMP also promotes Accessibility and Inclusiveness because underrepresented and marginalized groups will be more likely to be elected to parliament, if not from a single member riding, there is the additional opportunity of being elected as a candidate in a regional top up format.  Moreover, unlike some forms of Single Transferable Vote (STV) that can get very complex, MMP avoids “undue complexity in the voting process” as it would require nothing more than adding a second party-only ballot to the traditional candidate ballot with which Canadians are familiar.  Adding a second ballot to allow expression of partisan preference hardly demands abstruse speculative reasoning.  As for ensuring the Integrity of the voting system, MMP would practically guarantee a power-sharing government of some kind, unlike FPTP or ranked ballot in a single member constituency in which efforts to compromise only a small number of votes can reward one party with total victory in that riding.  Finally, MMP preserves Local Representation and the principle of accountability this promotes.  In the MMP system I propose every MP will have been elected through a constituency election or as part of a regional contest, and thus have to face re-election by the people, not simply appointment by party hierarchies. In fact, local representation would be enhanced over any electoral model that relies solely on single member constituencies because with MMP the typical Canadian would have more than one member representing his or her community.  MMP thus clearly fulfills the demands inhering in the principles outlined in the Committee’s mandate.
            I applaud the Committee Directorate’s statement of the principles guiding our examination of the various options available for reform.  I agree that practically all of these principles are integral to our idea of healthy democracy.  My one criticism is that the stated principles “Effectiveness” and “Engagement,” while good as such are, if anything, perhaps too timid.  I urge the Committee to consider the principle of Empowerment in your deliberations.  At its deepest level, the primary test confronting any electoral system is: How does it make the voter feel when she or he steps into the polling station?  Does the voter feel that her or his activity will have an impact or make a difference?  To my mind, there is no question that the FPTP has given millions of Canadians a feeling of disempowerment.  Our voter turnout rates are among the lowest of any advanced industrial democracy because so many of our fellow citizens feel that their votes do not matter.  The sad truth is that they are right.
            If you do not have the good fortune to live in a riding marked by some degree of parity in the correlation of partisan forces, then there is little incentive to vote because your vote will not make much of a difference in the outcome.  As a Political Science Professor I find it depressing to admit that this, but I cannot look my students in the eye and tell them that every vote matters in our democracy.  In Canada today this is simply not true.  We must not miss this historic opportunity to improve our electoral system.
            Empowerment as I understand it goes beyond “engagement” or “effectiveness.”  It is a radical principle, and it is a profoundly democratic principle.  It means literally every single voter having the power to elect a representative of their choice and every citizen experiencing the subjective feeling that he or she is part of the sovereign general will of society.  This lies at the heart of my problem with the idea of a ranked ballot used in a single member constituency to produce a fabricated majority, sometimes called the “instant run” off method.  In this model if your first choice does not have sufficient support, then the voter is told “don’t worry, the system will take your second or even third preferences and assign that support to another candidate.”  This form of ranked ballot certainly requires a great degree of engagement for the voters who have to ponder the intensity of their preferences ranging from “great I love this party or candidate” to “well this crowd at least don’t make me violently ill.”  This may be engagement of a sort, but how is this empowering? I don’t feel empowered when I go to a store to buy something only to be told I can’t have what I want, but they can sell me something else that I don’t like as much.   I don’t feel good or empowered in this situation.  Actually I feel disappointed or annoyed.  The only system that empowers the voters is one that ensures to the greatest extent possible that every individual’s vote—their real choice—will help elect their representative in parliament.  The only electoral system that achieves this sense of empowerment is PR whether it produces proportionality through regional top up sets added to single member constituencies or through a STV ballot attached to multimember constituencies.

            One of the main issues this committee will have to confront is what I call the “change problem.”  Some of those who oppose any electoral reform will try to make the argument that the current system is familiar to us and thus has some kind of default claim on the loyalty of Canadians.  They will plead that “FPTP has worked well to produce stable, majority governments and has stood the test of time through war and peace.”  Therefore any change to something as important as our electoral system is simply too risky, too uncertain.  Even some people who identify with the pro-electoral reform camp accept this basic premise and insist that “yes some change is needed but not too much change.”  Reduce some of the worst features of the current system, but do not eliminate too much that is well-trodden.  This is the specious attraction of the ranked ballot in single member majority, “just a little tinkering.”
            I find this argument utterly unpersuasive.  Change is required whenever inequities that have been tolerated in the past become intolerable.  I submit that this is the state we have reached in this country regarding First-Past-the-Post.  The public, especially young people, want to see fundamental change not only in the way we elect MPs in the mechanical sense, they want to see a transformation in the way our political elites dominate political life in its totality.  Whatever may be their feelings about specific electoral reform proposal A in contrast to electoral reform proposal B, Canadians are tired of false majority governments with the temerity to claim to represent the whole of this vast, diverse and complex federal political community.  In the last election in October 2015, Canadians expressed their desire to end the hyper-partisan, wedge issue politics that flourish in our traditional FPTP system.
            Now is the time to take seriously the new creed of innovation that is sweeping through all of our political, economic and social organizations.  On every university campus in the country we see signs heralding Innovation and Transformation. Can it really be the case that we are thoroughly unsentimental about every aspect of our communal life except the way we elect our Members of Parliament?  Is it possible that in this one vital plane of our political association we should accept: “If it was good enough for Lord Simcoe, it is good enough for me.”  The principles of justice may be eternal but the mechanical structures and social technology of democracy need to be revamped and improved periodically.
            Canadians are ready for a more consensual and inclusive form of political representation that calls upon us to fundamentally alter the way we view elections.  Instead of having the first question we ask on election night being “Who won?” Canadians look forward to a time when our first instinctive reaction to election results is “What did the people, my fellow citizens, say with their vote?”  Only later will we ponder which party or parties won in the technical sense.  Frankly, in a PR system the people win every election.
            This kind of dramatic transformation in our political culture is possible, but it is important to recognize that this kind of change does not arrive spontaneously or through purely organic growth.  It is naïve to believe that change will always happen, if it is meant to happen.  History shows us that it takes concerted, deliberate action with strong institutional support often to right even the most obvious injustices.  There are those who will say that high-minded rhetoric about democratic ideals is all very nice, but the practical political reality is that human beings are creatures of habit that will always revert back to what they know instead of untested schemes.  I admit that there is some truth to this.  Those of us who came of age under the old FPTP system may take time to adjust and learn the unfamiliar patterns and rhythms of power in the new system.  As a political scientist I may have to unlearn everything I thought I knew about Canadian elections and our party system.  But the reforms this committee are considering are not primarily about me.  With all due respect these reforms are not even about the members of this committee.  Improving our democracy is about the future.  Tomorrow I will teach an Introduction to Politics course at the University of Regina.  The incoming class at the UofR today were in diapers on 911.  Young Canadians are not as wedded to the current system as we sometimes assume they are.  My experience is that they typically do not suffer from intellectual myopia or sheer force of habit.  Young Canadians see the problem of disproportionality in our current system and they expect it to be repaired and, if need be, replaced.
            Let me end this submission with the example we can draw from one other important electoral reform in modern Canadian history with which I know everyone on the Committee (indeed every parliamentarian in Canada) is familiar.  Every MP in Canada was elected in ridings that were drawn by a process of boundary adjustment governed by the Electoral Boundary Adjustment Act first introduced back in the 1960’s and amended several times since then.  Prior to this time, constituency boundaries had been drawn by the government or parliamentary committees typically controlled by the government.  This principle of periodic partisan electoral boundary adjustment was the tradition in Canada, as it still is in most of the American states in which the state legislatures draw the congressional boundaries.  The idea of independent, nonpartisan commissions drawing electoral boundaries on the basis of scientific data and reasonable community of interest was something we Canadians learned from the Australians.  It made our democracy better.  It is almost inconceivable that Canada would go back to the partisan boundary adjustment process that seemed so natural prior to 1964.  I believe that something similar will happen with respect to reforming our voting system.  Future generations will say we did a good thing introducing a proportional voting system.  They may just wonder, what took us so long.

Dr. Lee Ward, Associate Professor, Department of Politics and International Studies, Campion College at the University of Regina