Reflections on reforming the Canadian electoral system

Abstract

Abstract. Canada's plurality vote system has been criticized recently for contributing to the regional and linguistic imbalance of the parties in Parliament. While many of the criticisms are undoubtedly correct, some of the promises held out on behalf of a reformed electoral system are open to question. Before Canada seriously considers abandoning its present electoral system, the assumptions made about alternative systems and the arguments presented on their behalf deserve closer scrutiny than they have so far received. By reflecting on the nature of political change and the representative process in Canada this paper comments critically on the adequacy of some of the claims put forward by the reformers. These claims relate specifically to increased party ‘credibility’ and ‘sensitivity’ under a different electoral system. The paper suggests that some of the claims made on behalf of a reformed system are doubtful, that representation in the sense of acting for others could be more a feature of the current system than of any reformed one, and that further research is needed before any final decision is made to alter the present electoral system.Sommaire. On a critiqueé récemment le système électoral pluraliste du Canada, l'accusant de contribuer au déséquilibre régional et linguistique des partis au Parlement. Beaucoup de ces critiques sont certainement justifyées mais certaines promesses faites dans le cadre d'une reiorme du systeme electoral sont discu‐tables. Avant que le Canada n'envisage 1'abandon de son systeme electoral actuel, il faut regarder de plus près qu'on ne l'a fait jusqu'ici les suppositions concernant des systemes de rechange et les arguments presented en leur faveur. En reiléchissant sur la nature du changement politique et sur le processus de la representation en cause, l'auteur fait une critique du bien‐fonde de certaines des pretentions avancées par certains reformateurs. Ces critiques portent, plus précisément, sur la ← credibility → et la ← sensibility → d'un systeme electoral different. L'article suggere que certaines des pretentions d'un systeme reiorm6 sont contestables, que la representation dans le sens d'action pour le compte d'autrui est peut‐etre beaucoup plus une caracteristique du systeme actuel que de n'importe quel systeme reform^ et que des recherches plus approfondies s'imposent avant que soit prise la decision de modifier le systeme electoral actuel.I wish to thank Duff Spafford of the University of Saskatchewan and Paul McKee, Research Fellow, Nuffield College, Oxford, for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper; the Warden and Fellows of Nuffield College for the hospitality and assistance accorded me during my sabbatical leave; and the SSHRCC for its assistance through a Leave Fellowship, 1979‐80.The case for an altered Canadian electoral system must be examined a good deal more critically than it has been to date. This essay attempts to contribute to that process by examining a few of the claims made recently on behalf of a reformed electoral system and by commenting on those claims in the light of Canadian political experience. The paper is not intended to make a virtue of the present system but it does raise questions about the liklihood of a reformed system living up to its advance bil‐ling. How is the problem defined? What are some of the benefits claimed on behalf of a reformed system? What are the notions of representation underlying the arguments? If answers could be suggested to such questions as these, they may give cause to reflect on the general case being made in support of an altered system and on the appropriateness of abandoning or altering the present system without further study.Although the recent literature on electoral reform in Canada has been sizable, its quality has been uneven. Between the two notable contributions of the last decade (the Cairns‐Lovink debate of 1968‐70 and the Irvine monograph of 1979) a number of government reports, chapters in books, and newspaper articles were published. If some of the arguments and assertions of this admittedly mixed group remain unchallenged they may in the long run prove seductive to an unsuspecting public, academic as well as general, looking for much more to come from a reformed system than it can possibly deliver. Certainly it has not yet been established in the literature that the electoral system warrants such critical analysis in isolation from or, indeed, at the expense of other representational concerns which in themselves may be more crucial to the healthy operation of the Canadian polity than a reformed electoral system.