Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
321
Gallagher Index
We believe the utility of the Gallagher Index, referenced in the Majority Report (MR),
was not sufficiently borne out in testimony. This Index was only discussed by one of the
196 witnesses who presented before the Committee, Professor Byron Weber Becker. It
is worth noting that the creator of the Gallagher Index, Professor Michael Gallagher, had
previously testified before the Committee, yet failed to discuss his own Index.
Furthermore, in contradiction to the majority of witness testimony and Principle 5 of the
Committees mandate, Professor Becker sacrificed local representation in favour of an
unsubstantiated increase in proportional representation.
Throughout the Committees work, the importance of local representation and the
fundamental connection between an elector and their representative was clearly
highlighted. It was evident through both the witness testimony provided, as well as open
mic sessions, that Canadians place significant value in accessibility and connection to
their local Members of Parliament (MP), and that any changes to the federal electoral
system should serve to preserve this connection.
We appreciated the models designed by Professor Becker in demonstrating the
Gallagher Index utility and the impacts of various systems on proportional outcomes,
but believe that the implications of achieving a score of 5 or less on the Gallagher Index,
as recommended in the MR, would need to be further studied, understood, and
presented to Canadians in a comprehensive educational process before being
implemented. Furthermore, the implications of reaching a score of 5 or less on
Canadas governance ecosystem need to be better understood as per
Recommendation number 11 in the MR, and how the electoral changes would affect:
The size of the House of Commons and the need to add a considerable number
of new MPs in order to achieve a score of 5 or less on the Gallagher Index.
The geographic distribution of ridings and the possible need to expand already
large rural ridings;
Types of riding redistribution: restructuring the House of Commons current 338
seats into a combination of single-member and multi-member districts and/or
adding additional multi-member seats to Parliament;
Potential creation of two classes of MPs under rural-urban models which would
see directly-elected rural MPs and urban MPs elected from Party lists; and
Rural areas being excluded from gains of increased proportionality.
Of note is the fact that the models proposed required significant increases in the
number of MPs in order to enhance proportionality. Indeed, an addition of 53 MPs to
Parliament was considered a Lite option. We believe that Canadians should be
educated and consulted on the breadth of these changes before any dramatic reforms
322
are made to the electoral system. According to Professor Beckers brief to the
Committee, there are no fewer than 5 varying electoral systems that could be
considered to meet the target of 5% in the Gallagher Index. The Gallagher Index is used
to measure the disproportionality of an electoral outcome; that is, the difference
between the percentage of votes received, and the percentage of seats a party gets in
the resulting legislature. The Index involves taking the square root of half the sum of the
squares of the difference between percent of vote and percent of seats for each of the
political parties. The Index weighs the deviations by their own value, creating a
responsive index, ranging from 0 to 100. The lower the Index value the lower the
disproportionality and vice versa.
The MR recommends that Canadas electoral system be determined by the following
formula. We believe most Canadians would not want their future electoral system
decided solely on the basis of a complex mathematical equation.
This would be difficult to explain and is a radical change that we think would be
unacceptable to Canadians.
323
324
325
politics. Furthermore, one of the main reasons young people choose not to vote is they
do not understand how political opinions affect them personally.
We are encouraged by the Governments proactive approach regarding the importance
of public education and engaging traditionally disenfranchised groups of electors
through Bill C-33: An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to make
consequential amendments to other Acts.
This Bill will create a National List of Pre-Electors. This aspect of Bill C-33 goes further
than the Committees Recommendation 9, allowing for pre-registration four years in
advance of youth reaching voting age (rather than the recommended two). Evidence
has demonstrated that once a person votes, they are more likely to vote in subsequent
elections. We believe that a goal of electoral reform be to help young people make
voting a habit their whole lives.
The Governance Ecosystem
Recommendation 11 of the MR describes the necessity of a comprehensive study of the
many effects of an electoral reform to Canadas governance ecosystem and is important
to highlight. This is described by the understanding that a proportional system would
impact the effectiveness and efficiency of government, the House of Commons and the
resources of the legislature.
While the Committee collected a significant amount of data on electoral systems in
different jurisdictions, it must be emphasized that impacts of various systems on the
broader Canadian governance ecosystem highlighted in Recommendation 11 are not
understood. Therefore, we recommend a proper understanding of this transition must
be done and explained to Canadians before change can take effect.
We maintain that the extensive process of electoral reform, as recommended in the MR,
including a referendum campaign which properly educates Canadians as to alternatives
to First-Past-the-Post; the necessary legislative changes to the Referendum Act, the
Canada Elections Act, and other related acts; and the understanding and
implementation of a new system, may take longer than the next election cycle to
properly complete. A period of comprehensive and effective citizen engagement is
fundamental to ensuring that Canadians properly understand and are equipped to
operate under a new electoral system.
A Forum Research public opinion survey conducted between October 7th and 9th, 2016
and presented to the Committee on October 20, 2016, demonstrated a concerning lack
of awareness on the part of Canadians regarding the electoral reform process. 51% of
respondents stated that they were entirely unaware that a federal legislative committee
was undertaking a study of electoral reform, five months after the Committee had begun
its work. With this in mind, we are aware Canadians are not engaged on electoral
reform and that more work must be done to ensure adequate public consultation.
326
In addition to having reservations about the timeline of enacting electoral reform, we are
concerned that the Recommendations proposed in the MR do not take into account
whether Canadians have received all the necessary information to support these
recommendations.
We are of the opinion that Canadians clearly indicated that there was no desire to see
the size of the House of Commons increase dramatically. Professor Brian Tanguay
noted during the British Columbia electoral reform proposal, the strongest criticism was
directed at increasing the size of the Legislature. This is particularly concerning as
Recommendation 1 proposes unknown and possibly unintended consequences of an
electoral system in order to achieve a score of 5 or less on the Gallagher Index.
Furthermore, we have a number of reservations relating to how electoral reform effects
and changes the ecosystem of Canadian governance. We hold the position that the
Committee focused on an examination of electoral systems in the abstract and not their
implication in the much larger ecosystem. Professor Jonathan Rose best describes our
political ecosystem as a Rubiks cube if you change one thing, the other things
change as well.
For major changes to be made to our electoral system we believe that a much greater
percentage of Canadians must be both aware of what changes are proposed and what
impact such changes would have. As part of the engagement process we believe that
both Canadians and political parties need a comprehensive understanding of the
ramifications that any fundamental changes to the electoral system would have, not just
on the results of the changes, but how the results would affect government as a whole.
For example, the Canadian public would need to be made aware that under several
proposals that would achieve a score of 5 or less on the Gallagher Index, Parliament
would be comprised of Members who are not directly accountable to the electorate, but
to Party leadership. Many of the models put forth described an electoral outcome that
used the present number of parties, failing to take into account the experiences of other
countries that have tried such systems and have seen the creation of many single-issue
or regional-based parties, and in many cases these parties are needed to form
coalitions which are inevitable under such systems. This gives single-issue or regionalinterest parties an influence far greater than the votes they received during a general
election. For any reasonable expectation of consensus as to changes to our electoral
system we believe that a much higher percentage of Canadians must be made aware of
the various changes suggested so they can both comprehend and agree with whatever
new system is put in place.
327
Given the uncertainties surrounding referendum proposal, it is our view that alternative
consultation methods should be examined as feasible options. Alternatively, the idea
that further parliamentary review would be sufficient and beneficial was proposed by
several witnesses, and remains an option. Ultimately, it is our position that the level of
engagement with the electoral reform process amongst the Canadian public was
insufficient to generate a clear mandate. We further recommend that greater
consultative measures be pursued in order to present an electoral reform proposal that
is consistent with the will of Canadians.
Therefore we recommend:
That the Government further undertake a period of comprehensive and effective
citizen engagement before proposing specific changes to the current federal voting
system. We believe that this engagement process cannot be effectively completed
before 2019.
328