The Ballot Box with Dr. Rose
April 2007:
On April 15 the Citizens' Assembly completed its historic task of assessing Ontario's electoral system and deciding whether to recommend a new system for the province. As has been well reported, the members chose Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). They did so because members wanted a system that combined proportionality with local representation.
While all of the elements of their proposed system can be found elsewhere, together they make a unique electoral system that speaks to what this group of citizens value. For example, their system has a province-wide list tier, much like New Zealand's MMP. The Citizens' Assembly chose to add a twist to this, requiring parties to file their lists, and the process used to nominate the list candidates with an independent, neutral body such as Elections Ontario. Local seats in their model comprise 70% of the legislature – suggesting the importance that they placed on this type of representation. Of other MMP systems, Wales comes closest with 67% of the seats being local (though some German provinces have 70% local seats). The members chose the simplest and most proportional formula (known as the "Hare formula") for the allocation of seats – similar to Germany. The number of seats in the proposed legislature is the same as Scotland at 129. And finally, list seats are chosen through a 'closed list' which is the norm in all MMP countries.
While the Assembly's final report will provide a full explanation of these design elements, the diversity of choices they made shows that they looked widely at MMP systems in order to come up with one that reflected what they believe best represents Ontario's reality. And it speaks well of how seriously they took their task.
Discuss the Ballot Box
February 2007:
Electoral systems are in some sense about choice. A question that designers of electoral systems must ask is: how much choice is appropriate for the voter? What happens if a voter wants none of the choices on the ballot? This little known issue is related to the democratic principle of voter choice. Such a provision allows voters to indicate that the choices offered do not meet their needs. Some ballots can accommodate this ballot design variation, sometimes called "none of the above" or NOTA. Others have no provision for this.
In Ontario, for example, a voter can decline a ballot and 2631 citizens chose this option in the 2003 election. Only in a few jurisdictions is the choice of NOTA made explicit. In Catalonia, Spain voters are given the option of a "white ballot" to indicate that they choose none of the above, and a similar provision existed in the former Soviet Union. In national elections in Canada, however, no such provision exists. Rejected ballots are those which are declined by the voter as well as those which are left blank or improperly marked. Like all elements of electoral system design, the absence and existence of features give us an insight to the values of system designers.
Discuss the Ballot Box
December 2006:
Ontario is not the only place considering making a change to its electoral system. Recently, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that his government would introduce legislation giving citizens the ability to vote for Senators.
If passed, the legislation would allow voters to rank Senatorial candidates on the ballot. Candidates who reach a quota of the vote in each province would become the government’s nominees to fill vacant Senate seats. The quota would ensure that all seats are filled and that as few votes as possible are “wasted.” It would do this by transferring the votes of the last placed candidate and redistributing those votes to the others. It would also allow votes in excess of the quota to be transferred to other candidates. If adopted, Canada would join Australia in using this method of selecting members of the Upper House.
And now a skill-testing question: What is the electoral system that the Prime Minister is proposing called? Read next month's issue of The Ballot Box to find out.
Discuss the Ballot Box
October 2006:
In this issue we stay in Canada, but go north of 60 to see how candidates run and governments are formed in the Northwest Territories (NWT) and Nunavut—our newest territory.
Single-Member Plurality is the system used in Ontario and all other Canadian provinces and territories. The Northwest Territories (NWT) and Nunavut are no exception. The system is often called “First Past the Post” because it works a bit like a horse race. There is only one winner in each electoral district or riding, and the winner simply has to finish ahead of the other candidates. The winner needs more votes than any other candidate (a plurality) but does not need a majority (50% plus 1) of the votes.
Typically in Single-Member Plurality, when you vote for a candidate, you’re also voting for that candidate’s political party. They’re one and the same. This is where politics start to differ in the NWT and Nunavut: they have no political parties. Instead, Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are elected as independents. Throughout the rest of Canada, the Premier is the leader of the party with the most number of seats and chooses the Cabinet. In the NWT and Nunavut, the Premier and Cabinet are voted in by secret ballot by all the members of the legislature.
While governments in the rest of Canada tend to be single parties that control a majority of seats in the legislature, in these territories, the government is always in a minority position. Out of 19 MLAs in each legislature, only seven (NWT) or eight (Nunavut) are members of Cabinet. That leaves a majority of “regular members” to serve as the unofficial opposition in the legislature and keep the government in check. As a result, regular members can exert considerable influence on government decisions.
Some may see the absence of parties as inconsistent with our parliamentary democratic traditions. Others may argue that the governments of NWT and Nunavut are models of consensus decision-making more in keeping with aboriginal traditions. And that without parties and party discipline, members may vote as they wish and represent the wishes of their constituents. Whatever your point of view, one thing is clear: when it comes to electoral systems, context and culture matter..
Discuss the Ballot Box
September 2006:
It is common to think of candidates who do not win elections as having been defeated. Candidates might be defeated because they received fewer votes or because their party did poorly.
But there is one place where some defeated candidates are actually “winners”. In the German Land (or province) of Baden-Württemberg (B-W), candidates who are defeated in their electoral district get a second chance to win a seat.
In B-W, like in Ontario and the rest of Canada, voters select the candidate of their choice and the candidate with the most votes wins a seat. This happens in each of B-W’s 70 single-member electoral districts. These candidates are said to receive a “direct mandate” from the voters.
In B-W an additional 50 seats are allocated to the parties according to their share of the total votes. The innovation is that these seats are awarded to the “best runners-up” of each party (i.e. the defeated candidates with the highest vote totals in their districts). In B-W, these candidates are said to receive a “second mandate.” Because second mandates are given to those who initially lost in their local district, some districts may have more than one representative whereas others may have only one.
So, if anyone ever asks, you can tell them there is a place where even some defeated candidates are winners.
Discuss the Ballot Box
August 2006:
Electoral systems are as diverse as fingerprints. While many share the same characteristics, no two are exactly alike. One of the most obvious distinctions is how many representatives are elected in each electoral district. In some systems, voters elect only one member. In others, voters elect several members or even several dozen in each district.
Another difference among electoral systems is the way voters choose candidates. Voters in some countries choose one candidate or party, but in others they are asked to rank candidates in order of preference. The most common electoral system is called List Proportional Representation or List PR for short. Approximately 35% of the world’s countries and territories use List PR, representing a population of around 1.18 billion people.
On the other end of the scale is the Borda Count, an electoral system that is little known outside of the one country that uses it. It is used by the Republic of Nauru; a tiny island nation in the Pacific that has an area of 21 square kilometres and a population of only 13,000 people.
The Borda Count is named after Jean Charles de Borda. A true renaissance man, he was a mathematician, physicist, nautical astronomer and sailor. When he was not busy with these interests, Borda spent time debating electoral systems with Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, the Marquis de Condorcet. It was during these discussions that Borda found an ingenious way to elect representatives.
The Borda Count allows voters to rank-order candidates according to preference. In this system first preferences are worth one vote, second preferences are worth 1/2 of a vote, third preferences are worth 1/3, etc. Borda wanted a system that ensured that votes have less weight as the ranking of the candidate decreases. Supporters like that this system ensures that all the preferences of all voters influence the results of the election.
In addition to being the only country in the world to use the Borda Count, Nauru has the highest percentage of independent representatives. Currently, 15 of the 18 members of its legislature are not members of any political party. It’s hard to know whether this result is a product of the Borda Count since there is no other country that uses this system. Either way, Nauru and its electoral system demonstrate the diversity of the ways citizens elect representatives.
Discuss the Ballot Box
July 2006:
In this section, I’ll share an interesting fact or a mini-lesson on electoral systems. I hope you’ll visit this section often so you can follow along with Assembly members as they learn together.
Since this is the first issue, it makes sense to examine psephology or the study of elections. I thought it might be interesting to examine the word’s roots.
Psephos comes from the Greek term for pebbles, a reference to the early practice of voting using pebbles. Logos, also Greek, means ‘the study of’. Together they form the term ‘psephology,’ meaning: the study of elections.
Fast forward to the way we vote today, using ballots. The term “ballot” comes from the Italian word palla which means ‘ball,’ a throwback to the days when balls were used to record votes—the original ballots!
Discuss the Ballot Box
Dr. Jonathan Rose is the Academic Director with the Citizens’ Assembly Secretariat and will be leading the learning sessions for the Assembly.