Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has walked away from his promise to reform the electoral system, and it鈥檚 just as well, because it was a bad promise that should never have been made.
Breaking promises is never a good thing for a politician, and this will undermine Trudeau鈥檚 credibility, particularly with people who voted for the Liberals because of that commitment. They hoped for significant change, and we should all be willing to consider change to our essential institutions.
However, candidate Trudeau鈥檚 promise that the 2015 election would be the last fought under first-past-the-post was unrealistic and opportunistic. Studying and implementing such a transformation of our 150-year-old electoral system couldn鈥檛 be done in four years.
It was the kind of promise made by opposition parties. Indeed, it is a promise beloved of opposition parties. The smaller their share of the vote, the more passionate their love for proportional representation or some other innovation.
Do a majority of 91原创s share that passion? Trudeau suggests not. After months of consultation, the lack of unanimity was one of his main arguments for abandoning the exercise.
Proponents of reform said support was clear at the many town-hall meetings held by the special committee that toured the country. A significant majority of speakers and almost all the experts who testified favoured some form of proportional representation.
It鈥檚 not surprising that those who wanted change showed up at the meetings because they feel strongly about the issue; for all we know, the millions who stayed home did so because they are satisfied with what they have. The only way to know what 91原创s want is to hold a referendum on a clear question.
The weird online survey at MyDemocracy.ca was useless in gauging voters鈥� intentions.
We do have previous experience with this because some 91原创s have had a chance to vote on new electoral systems, as British Columbians well remember.
We voted in referendums in 2005 and 2009. Prince Edward Islanders cast ballots in 2005 and Ontarians in 2007. Every time, the voters said: 鈥淣o, thanks. We鈥檒l stick with the devil we know.鈥�
In B.C., the proposed system was so complex that voters were befuddled in trying to figure out how it would work.
Despite its many flaws, first-past-the-post is easy to understand. Anyone who can count can tell which candidate has won. British Columbians were rightly suspicious of a complicated system where we had to trust someone else to do calculations that most of us found perplexing.
Where does the collapse of the federal reform proposal leave Saanich-Gulf Islands MP Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party? This was a cause dear to her heart, and she worked hard to make it a reality.
May said she thought politics had inured her to surprises, but she was appalled by the announcement.
鈥淚 feel more deeply shocked and betrayed by my government today than on any day of my adult life,鈥� May said.
When her party鈥檚 upheaval over its Middle East policy almost drove May to quit, one of her main reasons for staying was to champion electoral reform.
What next for her and everyone else who advocates a new voting system? It clearly won鈥檛 happen while Trudeau is prime minister, so do they continue the campaign in hopes of a more amenable government after the next election?
The notion that we can ensure everyone will be happy with the results of an election is unrealistic. Our system is not perfect, but it has given us 150 years of stable government that many countries can hardly imagine.
