A simpler road to electoral reform

One sure-fire way to make sure nobody is happy with our government is for the Liberal Party to keep its promise on electoral reform. Putting a stronger dose of democracy in the formation of our Parliament is pretty well the most wished-for change we could see in Ottawa. Achieving that is a process that everybody hates.

We know that Canada can do better than first-past-the-post, which almost always gives us majority governments built on the strength of a minority of voters. But change the system? Make a to-do list, and you'd find Canadians would rather everyone donate a kidney.

That's the reason reform referenda have failed in the past. The difficulty of explaining options for change outweighs dislike for the current less-than-perfect voting system.

So how can we make Parliament more accurately reflect the diversity of today's Canada? And how can we do that with a voting system simple enough not to scare people away from the ballot stations?

When you look at the options that will be on the table for an all-party committee soon to be announced, you can be forgiven for saying “none of the above.” The St. Lague method of voting? The revised St. Lague method? Who the heck is St. Lague?

I googled it and found he's not the patron saint of voters. Andre Sainte-Lague was a French mathematician who came up with a formula for deciding proportional representation in elections. His formula says the Quotient is equal to the number of Votes, divided by 2 times the number of Seats plus 1. (Q=V over 2S+1).

After the votes are tallied, successive quotients are calculated. The party with the highest quotient gets a member, then formula is run again for the next seat... in today's Parliament, 338 times.

Simple, right? Imagine watching TV all election night waiting for that to transpire.

One should be able to vote for the candidates and policies of one's choice without needing a math degree. One should expect that everyone's voice should get a fair hearing in Parliament without needing a system of charts and statistics.

Mind if I suggest something easier?

Let's first have fewer ridings, but more members per riding. In today's Canada, the major cities could each be one riding, with multiple members per riding according to population. Outside the major cities, we can divide the provinces into a few ridings each, but with as many members to elect proportionally as the big cities get. That shouldn't be hard.

Then, you get as many votes for as many MPs as there are in your riding. For instance, Edmonton has eight MPs now, Red Deer has two. So, each party would be able to nominate that number of candidates, along with as many independents as can get themselves nominated.

Voters may really like one candidate from a particular party, but not another. You would be free to pick the Tory you like, plus a Liberal you like — or go totally Green. Or just vote for the few people you really know about in what could become a long list while ignoring the ones who couldn't make an impression.

An Edmontonian who really hated one candidate could in effect cast eight votes for anyone but that candidate. Or, if you just totally love the person, mark one vote, and none for anyone else.

This is how we choose our City Council in Red Deer, and we get a pretty broad spectrum of views represented. They have to learn to work together, or nothing gets done, and voters will be mad at all of them. (As a reference, witness the deadlocked U.S. Congress, linked to the rise of “outsider” presidential candidates such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders).

I know in my city of Red Deer, there were candidates in the last election I wished I could have voted for, but I was in the “wrong” riding. So enlarge the riding and increase voters' access to representatives they want, regardless of party affiliation.

In places like Greater Toronto, people might agree that's creating too large a ballot. Then divide some major cities to make it manageable.

This system rewards candidates who can appeal to a broad spectrum of voters and gives independents and minor parties a fair shot. It would tend to eliminate extremists who might be able now to rally enough votes to overcome the split votes of people who don't want them. If an extreme candidate does win, he or she would just be one of several representing that riding.

Fewer ridings, more MPs per riding, in all likelihood from differing parties, representing a broad range of views. Without getting all mathematical about it, isn't that what we really want in government?

You're welcome. And no need to name the system after me. I'm no saint.