1 Format for a plebiscite question

Transcription

1 Dear Committee, Please allow me the opportunity to make a further submission in advance of your report due in April. I wish to address 3 topics: 1. The format of the question, 2. The options of electoral systems to be considered, and 3. Public education efforts 1 Format for a plebiscite question As I said in my original submission, I think the New Zealand model is the best chance for a) change to be achieved successfully, and b) in such a way that the greatest number of voters are satisfied. Therefore, I would support a decision by the Committee to hold the plebiscite with the question as proposed in November, with no further changes. That is: Q1 A question assessing the desire for change, and Q2 A question presenting a number of different options for change. If the Special Committee agrees by consensus that one or more of the models on offer should be dropped from consideration, I would also support that narrowing down of the options. If the Committee can t reach consensus on removing one of the options, then all the options proposed so far should be put to the people to decide amongst, in the November plebiscite. It was not specified in the Committee s November report, but as I said in my original submission, it is critical that the second question uses the Alternative Vote/ instant runoff/ranked ballot structure to determine which electoral model is most acceptable to islanders. I believe this is essential for the following reasons: 1. Most appropriate for a single winner question. The instant runoff process that eliminates the least supported of options at every stage while not being a useful tool to achieve proportionality in multi district elections is a very strong process for a single winner election, such as this plebiscite. 2. Outcome is supported by a majority. The winner of a Alternative Vote plebiscite would have the support of most voters. (A place a single X ballot would have a high chance of resulting in a winner that is only supported by a minority. That winner could even be the most strongly opposed option on the ballot!) 3. Provides more information. Ranked ballots inherently provide more information about the desires of the voting public, and uses that information to decide a winner. 4. Provides more choice. By using the Alternative Vote method, the Committee can reduce the pressure on themselves to limit the number of options being considered, 1/5

2 because there is no risk of vote splitting. All of the options for change can be included, and considered on their merits. The committee can put it to the people to decide. 5. Vote what you feel. In a ranked ballot election, strategic voting is not necessary. 6. Irony... It would be incredibly ironic to try to change a FPTP electoral system, widely acknowledged to be a flawed process, by using a FPTP plebiscite ballot. Example Question Question 1: Should Prince Edward Island change its electoral system? Choose one: [ ] Yes, I vote for a change to the electoral system [ ] No, I vote to retain the current First Past The Post system Question 2: If Prince Edward Island were to change to another electoral system, what electoral systems would you prefer? Rank all options from 1 4. Use 1 for your favourite option Use 4 for your least preferred option [ ] Alternative Vote (AV) [ ] Multi Member Proportional (MMP) [ ] Dual Member Proportional (DMP) [ ] First Past The Post plus Leaders (FPTP+) 2 Options available to voters Of course, I am an advocate for Proportional Representation. As such, below I present my arguments against the inclusion of either AV or FPTP+ as options in the plebiscite. However, I do understand that you need to take other opinions into consideration, so I expect that either one, or both, of these non proportional options will likely end up on the ballot paper. As a supporter of democratic process, and as a believer in Islanders ability to make informed decisions, I also wish to see the public consider a full spectrum of change options, giving each option a fair chance to win in comparison to the other options on the ballot. I believe that the options under consideration should not be limited by an assumption that the public won t engage or will be confused if they are presented with more than one or two change options. Islanders are a politically engaged group and there will be opportunities 2/5

3 for the public to learn about the options. Whatever question you define, it will be the role of government and civil society advocates to provide information about the choices available. On the Alternative Vote Throughout the consultations that I attended, I heard advocacy for FPTP+, DMP and MMP as options for change I didn t hear anyone strongly advocating for the Alternative Vote model. This alone could be considered reason enough to drop it from consideration. On the substance of the system: While the Alternative Vote does remove some of the pain of strategic voting, it does so only by allowing voters to write a 1 next to their values based top preference, then if that party has not won the seat defaulting to what that voter s strategic vote would have been anyway. The results are not substantially different to FPTP, and there is no point reforming the electoral system if the outcomes will not change substantially. It entrenches (and even strengthens) the role of two major parties, rather than supporting a diversity of voices. It is equally susceptible to wild swings between outright majorities of opposing parties as is FPTP. It is disproportional some voters loyal to smaller parties may go their entire voting life without ever seeing a candidate which represents their values being elected, even if that party represents 30% or more of the local vote. Up to 49% of votes are still wasted. While this is an improvement on FPTP, which frequently wastes more than half of votes, this is still too high. On FPTP+Leaders After the first round of consultations, I was surprised to see FPTP+ make it into the list of options being considered. I was sure it wouldn t survive the second round, but was extremely surprised to hear a number of past and present MLAs advocating for the system during the consultations. I strongly believe that this option should be excluded. I encourage the Committee to seek the advice of an independent electoral systems expert on the implications of this model, before including it as an option in the final April report. I believe that FPTP+ would be a step backwards, not forwards, for the following reasons: Through the Leaders ballot, you actively entrench parties into the political system, taking choice away from the voters. Democratically speaking, you have to allow people to be able to reject the premise of political parties entirely, and the FPTP+Leaders model does not allow for this scenario. 3/5

4 Most seriously, it is like introducing a US style presidential election into a Westminster system of government. In a Westminster system, the role of a party leader is to organise the party s caucus in the legislature and to form a cabinet or shadow cabinet. If a party does not win sufficient support for their party leader to be elected, then the party must re organize to appoint a new leader from amongst those who have won the support of their local constituents. In this way, the parties are beholden to the people, and not the other way around. The leader is equally subject to the decisions of the constituency as any other MLA. Under the proposed FPTP+ model, a party would choose a leader through internal processes, and each leader would be virtually guaranteed a seat in the legislature, as it would be highly unlikely for people loyal to the values of a party to vote for the leader of any other party on the Leaders ballot. I think it is harmful and undemocratic for a) the internal vote of a party to be more influential than the vote of the populace, and b) for any individual member of parliament to have their seat practically guaranteed term on term. The number of seats in the Assembly could potentially change from year to year one year there may be 3 Leaders elected, the next year, 4. Finally, the details of this model have not been worked out. It has not been tested in either real life or in academic simulations and scenarios. Additional weaknesses include: An incentive for strategic voting would still be equally present as in the current system. It cannot be considered a step towards proportionality in any sense adding two or three seats to a disproportional legislature will not remedy the underlying disproportionality. Any system based on FPTP will still advantage two major parties and produce wild swings between majority governments of opposing parties. It is true that smaller parties would find it easier to gain a single seat for their leader. However, if for example, a smaller party gathered 30% of the island vote but still did not win any of the FPTP seats, their representation in the legislature would be limited to that single seat, rather than the 8 seats they would deserve under proportionality. Mathematically, it still wastes a huge number of votes in both ballots. On the two Proportional Options being considered Both MMP and DMP should be options on the ballot. Islanders who care about proportionality should have a chance to choose between a tried and tested system used elsewhere in the world, and a new system designed for the Canadian context, but so far untested. If a ranked ballot is used, there is no incentive or pressure on the Committee to limit the choices to one over the other voters will decide. 4/5

5 3 Public communication I hope that the public education plan in advance of the plebiscite includes budget for at least each of the following items: Brochures sent to all households or electors 4 6 weeks before the plebiscite. On the inclusion of pros and cons : I used to argue that these should not be included in government publications as they should remain impartial, but after participating in the discussions during the second round of consultations, I now see the value in including this information, to help citizens to understand the different options we just need to make sure that all the arguments are adequately and fairly presented. (For example, coalition governments not being viewed as a disadvantage.) Consulting the advocates for each option on both their own system and the systems advanced by others would be a positive step to eliminate bias. Web content Video production and infographics for each option. Engaging a professional video producer and graphic designer to create educational videos for each of the options would be useful. No talking heads, more graphics, and a Here s MMP in under 2 minutes approach would be positive. I am working on such a video for DMP (with zero budget or video production expertise) and will send it to the Committee when it is complete. Hosting community learning events or debates on the different models at every high school on the island: during the day for students, and during the evening for parents and community members. I believe that engaging teachers in this effort would be a great step, to design the activities for maximum learning value. Sincerely, Anna Keenan New Glasgow (902) anna.c.keenan@gmail.com 5/5