Article content continued

While this may offer clues to why reform failed, it’s also true that electoral reform usually fails. As Richard Katz wrote, there have only been 14 major electoral changes since the 1950s around the world. And there’s a reason for that: governments change, attitudes within government change, or, as the prime minister said, “a clear preference for a new electoral system, let alone a consensus, has not emerged.” There was no such consensus-making body (such as a citizens’ assembly), so it’s not a surprise there was no consensus.

What is a surprise is why the government did not choose the more politically palatable option of holding a referendum to determine if there was an appetite for reform. In the next election, a simple advisory referendum that asked “Do you favour changing the voting system?” would have done a number of things. First, it would have appeased the Conservatives, who were insisting on one, and it would have been better than the present option for the NDP and Greens; second, depending on the results, it would keep the door open for reform; and third, it would honour a campaign promise. If the government was averse to change (as it seems to be) it might have followed past practice in the Ontario and B.C. referendums and established a super-majority as evidence of a consensus.

The decision by the prime minister earlier this week may look like it came from nowhere, but if you examine what preceded it, the story takes on a different hue. The more important legacy, however, might not be the lack of reform but a corrosion of the increasingly thinning levels of trust that voters have towards politicians.

Jonathan Rose is an associate professor in the Department of Political Studies at Queen’s University. He tweets at: @JonathanRose