Referendums are bad public policy. Referendums let elected officials escape their responsibilities. Referendums are a precedent for future referendums.

For the judgment of people who have an informed interest in the subject matter in question, referendums substitute the uninformed opinions of people who may have only a passing (and likely superficial) interest in the matter.

And referendums attract many votes that are cast for a variety of reasons other than responding to the main question being asked — effectively distorting whatever public opinion might actually be on the issue.

For all of those reasons, whatever the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform recommends when it reports on December 1, those proposed changes should not be put to a national referendum.

If all of that sounds like a call for “an elite accommodation” trumping the voice of the people, it’s not. What is the House of Commons there for, if not to represent the voice of the people? Since the enactment of the Charter of Rights in 1982, governments and individual MPs have been trying to slough off taking stands on tough issues like abortion or assisted suicide — acting only after the Supreme Court ruled that they had to and outlined what that action should be.

Now, if a decision on a potentially controversial issue — like how we elect members to represent us in the House of Commons — is going to be punted to the public at large, MPs will be even further neutered. And they will have done it to themselves.

And why should we allow MPs to dodge what could be a controversial bullet? After all, there have been many changes made to the laws governing elections in Canada since Confederation, some of them more far-reaching than others.

In a referendum, what would constitute a win? Would fifty per cent plus one be enough? Think of the reaction in provinces that voted ‘no’ in a referendum — but then had a new electoral system imposed on them. In a referendum, what would constitute a win? Would fifty per cent plus one be enough? Think of the reaction in provinces that voted ‘no’ in a referendum — but then had a new electoral system imposed on them.

Take the decision to expand the franchise to include women. Suffragettes had campaigned for years for the right of women to vote, often breaking a variety of laws to make their point. But it wasn’t until Robert Borden and his Unionist government realized they could use more votes in the conscription election of 1917 that the law was amended to let any woman with a son or brother already serving in the First World War cast a ballot. Mindful of their self-interest, and that of their relatives overseas, women voted heavily in favour of Borden and conscription.

Five years later, the law was amended again to allow all women of voting age to cast ballots. Since then, Parliament has acted numerous times to change the Elections Act.

Among the significant changes: aboriginals were given the vote; the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18; the minimum length of election campaigns was shortened; the hours polls are open in various parts of the country was changed; and election results from parts of the country where the polls are closed can now be broadcast in areas where the polls remain open.

All of these changes were achieved by passing acts of Parliament. So should any change in the way members are elected — whether it is a change to enact proportional representation (whereby parties win seats equal to the proportion of the total votes they receive) or a change to a transferable ranked ballot.

There’s a further argument against holding a referendum on any proposed electoral change. In a referendum, what would constitute a win? Would fifty per cent plus one be enough?

Think of the reaction in provinces that voted ‘no’ in a referendum — but then had a new electoral system imposed on them. That probably would lead to court challenges claiming that any subsequent election held under the new system was unconstitutional.

Here’s one further reason to simply change the electoral system by an act of Parliament: Suppose that, once tried, the new system is found to be unsatisfactory. Another act of Parliament, and the system is changed back again.

This article appeared originally in Policy magazine.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.