Balancing ballots: until the recent string of minority parliaments, Canada had majority governments that controlled 100 percent of the power while capturing less than half the popular vote in elections.

Following the most recent federal election, the voices calling for electoral reform were not as loud as in the past. One reason? More people turned out to vote reversing the downward trend of the previous five national votes. Another reason? The result in seats more closely followed the popular vote (although not in the case of the NDP).

However, 2006 was not without its strange outcomes:

* The NDP got a million more votes than the Bloc Quebecois but won 29 seats versus 51 for the Bloc;

* More than 650,000 people voted for the Green Party and elected no one, while only 475,000 Atlantic Canadians voted Liberal and sent 20 MPs to Ottawa.

There remains a healthy appetite for some type of electoral reform led by the likes of Larry Gordon at Fair Vote Canada. Talking about the 2004 vote, after which many Western Conservatives blamed Ontarians for the Liberal victory, Mr. Gordon said "Did you know that more people voted for the Conservatives in Ontario ... than the combined total for British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan? It's true. But, that translated into only 24 seats in Ontario versus 61 in the Western provinces."

All these oddities are possible because of our first-past-the-post electoral system. The candidate who wins the most votes in a riding wins. With four or more candidates running in most ridings, the winner rarely wins a majority of votes; he or she only has to get one more vote than anybody else. There are ways of dealing with this problem.

There's much talk about Proportional Representation (PR), which some predict will be used in Canada before the end of the decade. Under PR the seats a party has in parliament reflect its popular vote. It's a system used in almost all the world's democracies.

Most countries that have PR require parties to gain at least five percent of the vote to win a seat in the legislature.

According to Fair Vote Canada, a PR system in the January 2006 election would have created a Conservative minority government, hut with 113 seats rather than 124. The Liberal opposition would have dropped from 103 to 93 seats, and the Bloc Quebecois would have only 31 seats instead of their current 54. The NDP would have gained 30 seats though to 59 from the current 29. But the 12 seats that Fair Vote calculated would go to the Green Party would instead have gone to the bigger parties. That's because the Greens only got 4.2% of the vote, so with a minimum five percent requirement it still would not have any seats.

Proportional representation has several variations and Canadians have been looking into them.

In December 2004, a Citizens' Assembly in British Columbia (160 randomly selected people) recommended a form of proportional representation known as the single transferable vote (STV). It was proposed by the Assembly after almost 10 months of study, research, and debate, plus 50 public hearings and 1,603 written submissions from the public. Under this system, voters rank the candidates in their riding from most to least favoured, and each riding has multiple seats. First preferences are counted first. Second and subsequent choices are counted as needed. If a candidate has more votes than needed to win, extra votes are transferred to the next most popular candidate. If a voter's first choice isn't elected, the vote goes to his or her second choice. (If no one is elected then the candidate with the least votes is dropped and his or her votes go to the most popular candidate.) So, the vote is transferred instead of wasted. Yes, it's complicated, but it's used successfully in Ireland, Australia, and Malta.

As the Assembly explained in its report, the STV produces fair results: "The object is to make every vote count so that each party's share of seats in the legislature reflects its share of voter support."

In May 2005, a majority of BC voters (57.3%) said they were in favour of the new STV system but the numbers fell short of the 60 percent needed to adopt the change.

In December 2004, Quebec also introduced electoral reform legislation for its National Assembly. It chose a mixed-member form of proportional representation (MMP). Part of the assembly would be chosen according to popular vote and part would be elected through the traditional system.

Early in 2005 a New Brunswick commission recommended a form of proportional representation for elections. Thirty-six MLAs would represent individual ridings and 20 would be chosen according to the popular vote within four multi-member super-constituencies.

As is the case everywhere in the country where reform is being considered, New Brunswick has seen election results that don't reflect what voters want: in 1987, Premier Frank McKenna's Liberals won 60 percent of the popular vote but all the legislative seats. In 1999, Conservative Premier Bernard Lord's party won 53 percent of the vote but 80 percent of the seats.

Voters in Prince Edward Island also voted in a referendum in November 2005 on another proposed form of mixed-member PR.

Around the same time, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty launched a citizens' assembly similar to British Columbia's.

MMP is used in Germany and New Zealand, and has been adopted in Scotland and Wales recently.

Some think the downside of PR is that it can result in a succession of minority governments. This can gum up the decision-making process. Some issues require firm and swift action that might be better handled by a strong government that didn't have to compromise. They think a mixed system would work better with some seats elected by PR and some by the current constituency voting system.

There are plenty of other ideas around for improving Canada's electoral system. Lowering the voting age and having fixed terms of office are both being touted.

A study by the Montreal-based Institute for Research on Public Policy showed that Canada is among 12 of 40 comparable democracies that don't have some form of fixed-date elections. Henry Milner, author of the study, Fixing Canada's Unfixed Election Dates: A 'Political Season' to Reduce the Democratic Deficit, argues that fixed dates could address the democratic deficit, low turnout, and cynicism among voters. For example, he says election dates could be chosen that are convenient to the greatest number of people, that is, not in winter. And, fixed dates, "would remove the considerable advantage that the party, in power has under the status quo to use election calls for political gain." He adds that because poor voter turnout is largely a youth problem (about 60 percent of people under 30 don't vote), fixed dates would allow plenty of time to plan "much-needed youth, civic, and political education programs." And that, he thinks, would spark their interest which he says is low because of inattentiveness to the political world rather than rejection of parties or candidates. And public events, seminars, mock elections he says have a proven track record of boosting turnout. Campaign spending would be limited to avoid what some fear would become a U.S.-style "permanent campaign." Fixed dates would lower administrative costs because there would be more time for electoral officers to plan.

Some suggest that another way of involving young people is to give them the vote earlier, at age 16. According to The Democracy Project, a polling study of younger voters, 78 percent of youth would consider voting if the voting age was lowered. Voting, they say, is a habit, and starting it while young people are still in school will help bolster it. And the poll agreed with Prof. Milner that not voting reflects lack of information among youth, not lack of interest. The number one reason youth gave for not voting was lack of information about candidates and issues. The Democracy Project suggests that more funding should go to improving knowledge with the aim of "involving youth in the democratic process ... They are the voters we want going to the polls and shaping our country's future."

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. While some complain that minority governments are weak and unstable, others say they can actually reduce the democratic deficit by empowering opposition parties. As consultant Paul Adams pointed out in The Walrus (September 2005), the federal Liberals' budget deal with NDP Leader Jack Layton in 2005 may have been a desperate attempt by the Liberals to survive, "but that compromise also increased funding for housing, education, and foreign aid, areas that enjoy broad public support. And shouldn't the Liberals, who received just 37 percent of the vote in the 2004 election, be expected to compromise?" What do you think?

2. The D'Hondt method is a way of calculating who is elected from a list of candidates based on their share of the popular vote. It is used in Chile, Finland Japan, Turkey, and several other countries. Appoint a team of students to research the D'Hondt method and prepare a report for the class to discuss as a possible election reform for Canada.

3. Most political parties use a form of proportional representation to select their leaders. Research this and try to determine why politicians seem reluctant to introduce the system for legislative elections.

FACT FILE

In October 2003, the Ontario Liberals received 70 percent of the seats with just 47 percent of the vote

In the Senate, 68 out of the 105 seats are held by seven provinces containing 38 percent of the population.

In the 2001 election in British Columbia, the opposition NDP party was reduced to two of 79 seats in the legislature, after winning 42 percent of the popular vote.

In 1997, federal Liberal leader Jean Chretien won a majority in parliament with just 39 percent of the vote.

Websites

BC Citizens' Assembly Technical Report (on STV)--http://www.citizensassembly. bc.ca/resources/TechReport (full).pdf

The Democracy Project--www.thedemocracyproject.ca Fixing Canada's Unfixed Election Dates--http://www. irpp.org/fasttrak/index.htm

Power Inquiry (U.K.)--http://www.powerinquiry. org/home.php

THE RED CHAMBER

After winning the January 2006 federal election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper wanted to give Montreal a voice in his cabinet. The only problem was there were no elected Conservative MPs from the city to fill a post, So he appointed Montrealer Michael Fortier to the Senate, and then made him Minister of Public Works. That type of appointment is allowed under the current system but it still made a lot of people angry because Mr. Harper said he'd reform the Senate, promising to fill the upper chamber only with elected Senators, not government appointees.

That campaign pledge is still on the agenda (now that Mr. Harper has made his appointment), and a lot of people think that's a fine idea.

Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson thinks an elected Senate is a much better way to check the lower house (of Commons) than changing the electoral system from its current first-past-the-post system. "The trouble nationally remains Confederation's original sin--the appointed Senate," he wrote in May 2005. "Every other federation in the world has an elected upper house or one appointed by constituent states or provinces ... Lacking a sensible upper chamber, Canadian reformers want to change the electoral system to some form of proportional representation that would check the executive (prime minister and cabinet) by increasing the likelihood, or guaranteeing, minority or coalition governments."

ENGAGING THE DISENGAGED

They've got similar problems in the United Kingdom. Voters can no longer be bothered turning out for elections because they don't believe a word politicians say. During the 2005 general election a new dismal record was set; those voting for the winning party were outnumbered by those who didn't vote at all.

Seeing this sort of thing coming the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (the chocolate bar people) set up the Power Inquiry in 2004. Its job was to recommend ways in which British voters could be persuaded to return to the polling stations. Here are some of its recommendations:

* Limits should be placed on party voting discipline;

* Parliament should have greater powers to initiate legislation, to launch public inquiries and to act on public petitions;

* More decision-making should be delegated to local governments, which should have increased powers of taxation;

* Ministers' meetings with representatives of business including lobbyists should be logged and listed on a monthly basis;

* Seventy percent of the membership of the House of Lords should be elected;

* Greater resources and independence should be given to House of Commons committees;

* A system of proportional representation should be introduced.

The Power Inquiry shot down some of the popular explanations for low voter turnout. The group said its research showed people are NOT apathetic with a weak sense of civic duty. They are NOT lazy and content because of economic well-being. Low turnout CANNOT be blamed on negative news media or lack of time.

The most important reasons for disengagement are the belief that the individual has no influence over policy and the main political parties are almost identical and lacking in principle. Other reasons are that the electoral system leads to unequal and wasted votes, and many people feel they lack information or knowledge about formal politics.

VOTE OR ELSE

A former government official in Australia thinks Canada might consider compulsory voting as one way to engage people in the political process. Writing in The Globe and Mail in November 2004. Greg Barns says Australians have been obliged to vote by law since 1914 in Queensland, and 10 years later in the country's national parliament: if they don't vote they're charged with breaching the electoral laws and face a fine, or even imprisonment if they're persistent offenders.

As a result, voter turnout is more than 95 percent, and Mr. Barns says many Australians see voting as a pleasant duty.

Before 1924, voter turnout was below 50 percent, Mr. Barns quotes a 2001 research paper from the Australian Parliamentary Library that suggests compulsory voting "plays a crucial role in reducing the social bias in turnout. In voluntary systems, it is the poor and the marginalized who are the non-voters." He adds that compulsory voting saves "billions of dollars spent in time and effort trying to ensure that people register to vote and then fill in a ballot ... Political parties focus their efforts on promoting their leader and their policies. And, in the 48 hours before polling day, there is none of that whistle-stop touring across the country to encourage people to get out and vote."