Article content continued

But suppose you were genuinely interested in giving a fair hearing to the alternatives, gathering consensus, and consulting the public, such that the final result, if not to everyone’s liking, was at least seen as legitimate? How would you go about it?

Is the usual parliamentary committee, dominated as it is by the governing party, enough? Or should the parties be represented, as the NDP has suggested, in proportion to their share of the popular vote? Should the process be taken out of the hands of the parties altogether, whether through a royal commission or an assembly of ordinary citizens?

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

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

And that’s just the start. How should whatever was proposed be ratified? Many have suggested a referendum is in order. Fine: on what? Should the public be asked to approve a particular reform proposal, or choose between a menu of options? By what voting system? With what majority? And so on?

These are all knotty questions. Still, it should be possible to narrow things down a bit. We are not starting from scratch here, after all. Recent years have seen two major consultative exercises on electoral reform, in British Columbia and Ontario, both involving citizens’ assemblies. We can build on their work.

And while the theoretical possibilities are limitless, in the broad stroke the design of electoral systems comes down to how you answer a couple of large questions. First, should it be “winner take all,” in which only the winning candidate in each riding is elected, or proportional? Put another way, should ridings be represented by one member or several — since it is by dividing a riding’s representation among several members, in proportion to their share of the popular vote, that proportionality is achieved.