Article content continued

The fundamental rules of democracy — such as how we vote — require widespread agreement in order to be considered legitimate and thus the opposition parties are insisting that they get a say in any changes. Ironically, some of them would likely have a greater influence on the process if Canada used a system of proportional representation to elect parliamentarians.

Continue reading…

[/np_storybar]

So far, this debate has largely polarized into two camps: those who prefer the status quo and want a referendum on the presumption that any change can be defeated; and those who prefer some alternative system and fear a referendum would scuttle any chance for change. Both sides are more interested in getting the outcome they want and are merely using the question of a referendum as camouflage for predictable self-interest.

Yet a more principled view on electoral reform should separate the preference for a desired outcome with a respect for the proper process, in the same way that voters all have a vested interest in free and fair elections, even if most have a preference about which party wins. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, for example, endorsed the single transferable vote proposal in the 2005 and 2009 British Columbia referenda. But we would never have endorsed such a change without a referendum, which reflects our belief that such a fundamental change requires the direct approval of the voting public.

Historical precedent weighs heavily in favour of a referendum, as no government in modern Canadian history has attempted to implement it without one — and electoral reform referenda in Prince Edward Island (2005), British Columbia (2005 and 2009) and Ontario (2007) were all defeated. But not all electoral reform referenda pan out this way. In New Zealand, for example, a 1992 referendum on electoral reform not only won, but won big, with the pro-reform side winning 84 per cent of the vote. Accordingly, reform advocates should not view a referendum as a death sentence for their cause, but as an opportunity to win new converts to the pro-reform side.