IMAGINE a federal election night that produced some startling results.
In Western Canada, the Liberals make a breakthrough with 23 seats, including six in Alberta. It is their best Alberta result since 1940. In vote-rich eastern Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada makes a breakthrough with 43 seats in Ontario and nine in Quebec.
The Liberals are returned to power but to a minority government, facing the prospect either of bargaining for support from the renewed 25-member New Democratic Party caucus or negotiating on an issue-by-issue basis with opposition MPs.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
This is not a prediction of how the 2004 election will turn out. It is a description of how the House of Commons would have looked after the 2000 election if it more accurately represented the political configuration voters wanted to see in place.
It divides the vote percentages received by the parties among the 301 House of Commons seats and adds Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative votes together to arrive at Conservative party total (a practice pollsters warn is not likely to hold true in the next vote.)
This would be the result of a system of proportional representation – a less stable government but a House of Commons more accurately reflecting Canadian political leanings.
Expect more talk about PR as prime minister Paul Martin tries to convince Canadians that he is addressing what has come to be called the “democratic deficit” – a malaise characterized by declining voter turnout and increased cynicism about the political system.
Although PR has long been a hobbyhorse for some democratic campaigners, it soon will be given credibility by the Law Commission of Canada that is reportedly on the verge of recommending a partial system of parliamentary proportional representation.
Don’t expect most sitting politicians to embrace it, including Martin.
A prime minister could not, as now, have a strong majority government with the support of as few as 40 percent of the voters while many MPs would lose the legitimacy of their minority win.
Early in its Feb. 2 throne speech opening the new session of Parliament, the government opined about the need to “reconnect citizens with the members of Parliament” and to embrace the power and role of MPs in government.
That is a far cry from making MPs more representative. Most owe their seats to the existing system that awards the election to the candidate who comes first, usually well short of 50 percent support.
Consider, for example, Saskatchewan New Democrat Lorne Nystrom, a passionate campaigner for democratic reform and preferably abolition of the Senate.
Martin is proposing to give MPs like Nystrom more power to reflect the voters of his constituency but based on 2000, Nystrom represents just 41 percent of the voters of Regina-Qu’Appelle.
The 41 percent who voted Alliance likely believe they are voiceless in Parliament, their vote wasted, even if their MP offers help on a non-policy constituency matters.
Constructing a House that more accurately reflects Canadians’ political allegiances may not find many fans among incumbents who benefit from the existing system but as political physicians begin to try to repair the body politic, it will be difficult to ignore the simple proposition that everyone’s vote should count equally.
