I’ve been spammed by Fair Vote Canada!

It’s happened twice already, actually.  I received two unsolicited E-Mail messages asking me, as an academic, to sign a letter penned by Peter Russell about changing the electoral system to proportional representation.  My first thought was: how dare they! My second thought was: give it up, Peter!

I actually don’t think Peter Russell should give it up.  There is something admirable about the persistence.  But, this tactic has been tried many times before and failed.  Why does it matter that a bunch of academics, many of whom know little about electoral systems, sign a letter written by Peter Russell? It really doesn’t.

Anyway, I get this e-mail in June and again a couple weeks later.  Literally, on one of my computer screens I have got this e-mail and on the other computer screen I’ve got articles and opinion editorials about the mayhem that is the Senate.  Articles were telling us that Senators should not block Reform Act.  It should not be possible, they said, for an undemocratic body to block the legislative will of the people.  A few days later, we get articles suggesting that the Senate had failed us by helping the Harper government pass C-377, which discussed transparency in labour union finances.  Funny how sometimes we need sober second thought, and sometimes we don’t.

The truth is that the Senate has nearly identical powers to propose and pass legislation as the House of Commons.  The same thing applies in the amendment and defeat of legislation.  The question is whether it ought to have the legitimacy to thwart the legislative will of the House of Commons if it is an unelected body.  That very legitimacy is particularly questioned when we have a few senators maligning the good work the upper house does.  More Canadians are on side that reform of the Senate has to take place.  The Supreme Court of Canada, however, believes that major reform can only happen with the consensus among the provinces, which doesn’t yet exist.

So, here is the setup if you’re following all of this:  We have a desire by Peter Russell to change the way we elect MPs to the House of Commons, yet Canadians are more interested in talking about reforming the Senate.  The questions for Peter Russell and Fair Vote Canada is simple: Why the heck are you continuing to fight a battle for proportional representation of the House of Commons when you get the exact same thing if you change the way we appoint/elect senators by moving towards a PR system for the Senate?  I repeat, you get the exact same thing by shifting your advocacy to the chamber that actually needs the most reform, and the beauty is that chamber can propose, amend, approve, or block any legislation just like the Commons

Actually, I would argue you get even more.  Having PR in the Senate would allow a PM to have more legitimacy in appointing Senators to his/her cabinet.  This expands greatly the opportunity for a PM to improve the quality of cabinet, create better regional and gender representation, and so on.  It also makes it much less likely for backbench MPs in the House of Commons to make cabinet, which would increase the likelihood of MP independence and relax party discipline in the House of Commons (although it would surely strengthen party discipline in the Senate).   A majority Commons would have to face a minority Senate, which would improve accountability and transparency, and force the governing party to consider opposition concerns when passing legislation.  You would probably see more government bills fail.  In case of a stalemate between the two houses, we could seek amendments to include a provision of a joint session of parliament between the Commons and Senate to determine the final fate of legislation.  Testing whether the government has confidence of the Commons could still be determined the traditional way, or by joint session as well.

The constitution would surely require amending, and that would require provincial consent, but the point is that there is a real appetite for Senate reform right now that one cannot ignore.  So why aren’t are electoral reformers taking notice?  Why aren’t they taking their quest for PR to provincial capitals and try to find consensus that, at the very least, we will elect rather than appoint senators and elect them via PR?  Is it because they are acting as proxies to the one party that is promising proportional representation for the Commons and abolition of the Senate?

Persistence is one thing, but results are another.  I am not big on these sorts of democratic experiments, but if you at least propose something logical and likely to earn public support, it would certainly get my attention.