Article content continued

Likewise, let us, in discussing potential reforms, stick to models that have any practical likelihood of being adopted. In particular, those who are concerned to preserve the principle of local representation should be assured here and now: there is exactly zero possibility of any system that did not do so even being proposed, in a country as vast as this, let alone passed into law. It is the very definition of a red herring.

A still greater problem, if the early debates are any indication, is the tendency of both sides to talk past each other, without common terms of reference. It is not possible to disagree with someone, in any intelligible sense, until you have agreed on some benchmark against which to measure the truth or falsehood of your respective positions.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or

Absent that first step, it is as if the two sides are speaking different languages. Thus, to the objection of the reform camp, that the present system regularly results in “majority” governments being elected with less than 40 per cent of the vote, its defenders respond: exactly! That’s not a bug, that’s a feature!

Presumably all would say they believe in democracy. But it seems we have differing ideas about how to describe it, or what are its essential features. I might have thought we could agree it meant rule by the majority, but very well: if not that, is there some other principle we might agree on?

How about this: in a democracy, each person’s vote should count for as much as every other. This strikes me as one of the core promises of democracy. Universal adult suffrage — “one person, one vote” — is a foundational principle of every modern democratic state. And yet, while it is true that every adult citizen can vote in Canada, it is demonstrably not the case that every vote counts equally.