The Special Committee on Electoral Reform resumed its deliberations Monday after a two-week break, hearing from three political science professors who all opposed the option of a national referendum on electoral reform.

Though Ken Carty (professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia), Brian Tanguay (professor at Wilfred Laurier University), and Nelson Wiseman (professor at the University of Toronto) expressed different views on which electoral system is the best for Canada, they were in complete agreement on the politically charged question of whether a referendum on electoral reform should be held, expressing a consensus against a national plebiscite.

The Conservatives have been pushing for a referendum while the governing Liberals have been less enthusiastic. Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef told the committee on July 6 that referenda are divisive and not the best way of seeking clarity on the issue.

Carty, who served as the director of research for the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, said the evidence from that referendum suggested a large majority of the people who cast ballots in that referendum knew nothing about the issue on which they were voting.

And that evidence from Ontario’s referendum suggests the same.

“You’re elected to make public policy, not to stick your finger in in the wind,” a more blunt Wiseman told MPs.

“I would not put the issue of an alternative voting system to a referendum. It’s unnecessary; it’s a waste of money; and it will almost certainly fail. You may as well recommend not changing the system and save Canadians the cost.”

In the committee earlier this month, Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand estimated the price tag would be around $300 million.

“I think Professor Wiseman has made the case that a referendum on this is not needed,” Tanguay said. “But by all means, include a provision for reviewing whatever new system is brought in after one or two electoral cycles.”

All three also agreed that security concerns about online voting remain too great to try implementing it at the federal level any time soon.

“The preponderance of experts are opposed to it, because…you can hack the system,” Wiseman told the committee, citing the recent hack of the Democratic National Committee as an example of a threat and e-voting “snafus” during the 2012 NDP leadership race, but adding that he could support its limited use for those with mobility issues.

“This isn’t something I’ve done research on, but like Professor Wiseman, I’d be worried about the security aspects of online voting,” Tanguay followed. “But nonetheless I’m intrigued by the process and believe that a number of studies at the municipal level here in Ontario are being conducted, will be conducted in the future, and ought to continue to be conducted.”

For Carty, the fact that both the current chief electoral officer and his predecessor felt there were still too many security concerns meant that it was probably an issue to be considered in the future.

On mandatory voting, Carty and Tanguay thought the Australian model of a modest fine for not voting was something that should be adopted in Canada, but Wiseman preferred an incentive over a punishment.

“Rather than a penalty…offer them a carrot. Parliament has introduced so many boutique tax credits — give them $20-$30. Right now it costs about $30 for every vote that’s cast,” he said.

Tanguay later disagreed.

“I cannot take seriously the proposal to give people tax credits for showing up to vote,” he said.

When asked about his preferred electoral system for Canada, Wiseman suggested the hybrid system used in Alberta and Manitoba between the 1920s and 1950s — with a single transferable vote system used in the cities (Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg) and an alternative ballot in the rural areas.

“If you live in a large metropolitan area, it doesn’t matter if the MP represents Davenport or Spadina Fort-York — the issues are similar. However, if you live outside of those cities it’s very vital,” Wiseman explained.

Carty argued there was no perfect system and didn’t prefer one in particular, while Tanguay believed some form of mixed-member proportional representation would be best.

In making his case, Tanguay cited the work of the Dutch political scientist Arend Lijphart, whose research has shown consensual democracies (ie. those that use some for of proportional representation) have a more content electorate than majoritarian states.

That led to the most heated exchange of Monday’s meeting, between Tanguay and Conservative MP Jason Kenney, who has remained a federal MP and member of the committee despite having announced his intention to become leader of a united Wildrose and Progressive Conservative party in Alberta.

“You’ve painted a bit of a picture of consensual democracies being sort of bucolic states where everybody is happy,” Kenney said. “Is it not equally true that…some of the most dysfunctional democracies in the world are in the consensual category? Right now, Spain would be a relatively good example.”

Kenney added that the level of political discourse in Israel’s Knesset, which is elected using pure proportional representation — is isn’t exactly civil.

“This is old hat, Mr. Kenney. The examples of Israel — or why not…you should’ve mentioned the Weimar Republic electing Hitler,” Tanguay replied.

After the two spoke over each other, Tanguay accused Kenney of not taking the process seriously.

“It’s simply not fair — it’s not accurate to cite Israel — it indicates that you’re not serious about actually being open to a discussion about the merits of electoral reform. (You’re) simply starting off opposed to the idea. That’s abundantly clear.”

“So I’m not serious because I’m raising concerns about consensual democracies which don’t function at the same level that you suggest they generally do?” Kenney answered.

Yes, Tanguay said.

“Ok. Thank you very much,” Kenney replied.