Dion isn’t talking about this because of May–he said the same thing when I interviewed him last fall, so he clearly means it. But he also said a number of conflicting and dismaying things about it at the time as well. I won’t quote the whole thing, but if you scroll down to the “fourth and final thing” in the interview, I’ve got a bunch of paragraphs about the issue.

In the Conservatives elected Senate bill Im pretty sure that it says something about exploring PR.

The Conservative Senate Bill is a sham. The only way you really reform that body is through constitutionally re-opening it.. and if you do that, you open a whole can of worms.. plus I doubt you’ll see the provinces agreeing to any changes in that body.

The House voting can be switched however without re-opening the Constitution, and there are a vocal minority of us within the Liberal blogging community and Liberal Party that believe this is something we should be openly advocating - a) because its a bold new idea that would show the Liberals are open to electoral reforms, and b) its a perfect counter to the aforementioned sham Senate “elected” bill.

Nath6ca — does it not strike you as a bit odd that the chamber that makes our laws is not elected by PR but an oversight body (”sober second thought”) is? Seems like they have it backwards. Piecemeal Senate reform does not constitute democratic reform. When I talk of electoral reform I am talking about the House of Commons.

IP - clearly Dion has talked about it before as evidenced by Jedras interview (and your own). What is different today is that May and Dion have agreed that if the Liberals are elected with a minority and if the Greens win a seat or two (two ifs), the Greens would support the Liberals provided they demonstrate real action on the environment and on electoral reform. So, the Liberal-Green agreement does represent a clear agreement to get results on the environment and electoral reform. It’s up to Canadians to judge whether that’s something they want or not. That’s not to say that the NDP wouldn’t also support electoral reform, of course, but in spring and fall 2005 sessions they held the balance of power with the Liberals and didn’t consider electoral reform a priority. It was an opportunity lost.

It’s good when any politician, for any reason, talks about electoral reform. Seriously, from talking to non-politically involved people, the biggest hurdle to get over is the fact that almost no one knows what it entails or what it’s about. I’m no expert, but I seem to be unique amongst my family and amongst some circles of friend in knowing what the term means.

However, I can’t get too excited until I know precisely what Dion means by “exploring”. The Cons have made similar vows, and we all know that the process they’re iniating, while qualifying as an “exploration” of sorts, isn’t real action.

Democratspace is using “talking points” of why the May-Dion duo is good for democracy. Blaming the NDP for what the Liberals didn’t do is a poor excuse and a weak one at that. Right up there with “Jack didn’t phone her back.”
Of course the NDP would support PP reform. Why wouldn’t they as they have passed the “exploration” process and have “actual policy” on their books.
And saying this is a “great leap forward” that Dion said that he was “willing to explore electorial reform” not that he will make this a policy blank.
Considering this isn’t liberal policy and last time this came forward at a liberal convention it came out with a big resounding “no” .
Also, about electorial reform and the Martin govt. During the last minority situation, the Liberal government stonewalled on a motion presented by Ed Broadbent, and a Standing Committee called for a citizens’ consultative process to work in parallel with a parliamentary initiative on electoral reform, beginning in the fall of 2005. Nothing happened.
So I hope this shuts down that Layton didn’t try to get electorial reform going with the libs.
Why didn’t Martin stonewall? http://www.ndp.ca/page/2997

It’s really not worth arguing whether it was the Liberals’ or the NDP’s fault that PR was not passed in 2005. Personally, I think, if the NDP had insisted on it for a confidence vote, the Liberals would have caved, but that’s just an opinion, and it doesn’t make the lack of reform the NDP’s fault. In any case, it is clear that the Liberals under Dion are extremely open to electoral reform where the Martin Liberals were not. This should come as little surprise; the Martin-era Liberals were very content with the idea that they would be in power in perpetuity while winning 36-40% of the vote each time. Dion, on the other hand, has been much more pragmatic. You can’t logically argue that the modern red-green alliance is not a good thing for electoral reform; bringing up what Martin did is not particularly meaningful.

Sorry, janfromthebruce. I call it like we see it. There’s little doubt that electoral reform wasn’t a priority for Paul Martin — it wasn’t in their platform and it wasn’t what Liberal voters expected Martin to do. But electoral reform was a plank of the NDP platform and its supporters did expect it to fight for it. The NDP has of course long supported electoral reform, but when they had the opportunity stake the survival of Martin’s government on electoral reform, they didn’t do it. So the issue isn’t judging the NDP against the Liberals on electoral reform. It’s judging what the NDP could have done on electoral reform the last few years and didn’t, and specifically comparing the NDP vs. the Greens on electoral reform in the future. I have no ill will towards the NDP, but on electoral reform, they haven’t made it enough of a priority on which to stake their support.

Broadbent’s opposition private members bill stood little chance of gaining traction without Layton making NDP support contingent upon electoral reform (like Catherine Bell’s bill in the current session). Instead, in spring ‘05 they demanded more social spending, which is fine, but then in fall ‘05, when it would have made perfect sense to demand action on electoral reform, the NDP instead demanded nebulous promises from the Liberals to stop the privatization of healthcare. It was a crass political move intended to paint the Liberals as too far to the right on healthcare in the election that was coming, with the hope that they could siphon off Liberal voters. Despite the Liberals battling corruption charges, the NDP increased its vote by just 1.8%, so that strategy didn’t exactly work (healthcare wasn’t the #1 issue for once, it was about trust and accountability).

So what’s different now? Stephane Dion actually supports electoral reform, unlike Martin. There is more reason to believe that the Liberals, if they get elected will take action on electoral reform. But they won’t do it unless they have a minority government and someone forces them to do it. But Layton and the NDP still haven’t made their support (for either the Martin or Harper governments) contingent on electoral reform. The NDP has had the chance to do just that with both Liberal and Conservative governments and hasn’t done so.

Enter the Greens. May says that they will prop up a Liberal minority government on the condition that they take action on Kyoto and that they take action on electoral reform. If Greens are elected, we can then judge them against what they say are their priorities. If they don’t make their support conditional on electoral reform, then like the NDP they will not have lived up to expectations.

In the meantime, the Greens have indicated their willingness to work to get the Liberals elected and will hope to gain a couple seats so they get a foothold in parliament. I suspect it is the fear of this that motivates the NDP’s strong response against the Liberal-Green partnership.

Given that the Greens are polling higher than the Bloc and within a couple points of the NDP, it seems that people are starting to pay attention. From my perspective it would be a serious problem for our democracy if the Greens get 10% of the vote and no seats, while the Bloc gets 10% of the vote and 50 seats. That’s why electoral reform is so important.

I’m not sure I believe that the Liberals will be more inclined to support electoral reform, regardless of Dion’s wishes. The real test will be when the Star prints an editorial in favour of reform - when that occurs, it will signal that the mentality that prizes so-called stable majorities over voter representation is on the decline.

Layton was talking about reform immediately after the 2004 election. While it may be fine for the Greens and other groups with no seats to be making support conditional on reform, it’s not so simple for parties that are actually, you know, in Parliament. Frankly, more spending on education and improving infrastructure is a more pressing need than electoral reform.

In the end, Dion has had several months to push for reform in concert with the NDP. What the hell is he waiting for?

Sorry, democraticspace, but I call it like I see it too.

I have to agree with you when you say that, “There’s little doubt that electoral reform wasn’t a priority for Paul Martin — it wasn’t in their platform and it wasn’t what Liberal voters expected Martin to do.” The reason that the NDP didn’t make their support contingent on proportional represnetation was simple: they wouldn’t have accomplished anything.

It’s easy to forget but Martin had promised before the entire nation to call an election within days of the Gomery report. In the fall the balance of power became irrelevant because Martin knew an election was forthcoming whether the NDP continued to support him or not.

As you say Martin zero pressure from his voters to explore proportional representation, so he would have been very comfortable facing them having rejected the NDP’s calls for it. Martin clearly wasn’t as comfortable facing the electorate having wasted billions in corperate tax cuts, which could have been spent investing in everday people.

Furthermore, of any party with seats in the house of commons the NDP stands to gain by far the most from PR. Any party advisor worth their salt would be able to tell you that the electoral leverage gained through pitting Martin against Medicare would be far outweighed by the benefits PR holds for the NDP.

In this sense proportional representation is not only a priority, but an issue of self interest for the NDP, which makes it is difficult to understand how anyone could defend the argument that the NDP rejected proportional representation for political gain.

Rather than condeming Jack Layton for not persuing goals for which he lacked the resources to achieve,he should be commended for rolling up his sleves and attaining tangible, realistic results for Canadians.

After demonstrating this continued dedication to delevering on key priorities it seems incomprehensible that anyone but flagrant partisans would argue that PR would be more likely under a weaker rather than a stronger NDP mandate.

democraticspace - To me it doesn’t seem odd because it all depends on how you interpret parliament should work. Personally I feel that the House of Commons should represent the population (I would prefer some type of Majority voting system for the H Of C though) and the Senate should represent each province or region equally so not one region controls the whole country (for this I would most defiantly support some type of PR system). I do think people are lying to their selves though if they don’t think we need electoral reform. It’s obvious when candidates win elections with less than 40% of the vote there’s a problem. Also I do believe that the Senate deserves more reform than the H of C.

I agree with the post by Peter. Working for priorities that most Canadians wanted and expressed at the time rather than for electoral reform which had been continually stonewalled by the Liberal govt.
“The Federal Government
In the Speech from the Throne, on October 5, 2004, the federal government announced its intention to “examine the need and options for reform of our democratic institutions, including electoral reform.” Significantly, the commitment to consider electoral reform was not initiated by the governing Liberals. Instead, it was part of a package of amendments to the Throne Speech put forth by the Opposition. Given its minority government status, the Liberals were forced to agree to the amendments, in order to ensure the Throne Speech passed in the House.
To learn more about the purpose of a Throne Speech and how it is delivered
Subsequently, Deputy House Leader Mauril Bélanger announced the federal government is developing plans to hold a series of hearings across the country, where the public will be invited to express its views on all aspects of the electoral system” (http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/electoral/reform/across-canada.html).
In a throne speech by the liberal govt because to stay in power had to get support from the NDP to pass. So the NDP works at trying to get the job done, but alas, the liberals weren’t up to the heavy lifting. And Dion was in cabinet, so why didn’t he push for this? I’m sure he would have had more sway, being on the inside and all. Too bad about that missed opportunity!

Whats there to explore.You are either for electoral reform or your not.It’s been studied to death,every one knows reform is needed if ever Parliament is to reflect the Canadian electoral
Dion knows just as well as Harper how skewed election results are,and that reform is the only way to attain real democracy.
We had a citizens committee here in BC,and now one in Ontario.Thats the largest prov and the third largest.In both there is wide support.
But I won’t be holding my breath on the Liberals.They along with the conservatives benefit the most from first past the post.Why would they push for change.They haven’t and they will not.Unless dragged kicking and screaming.
Both parties fear PR because they know they would face real competition,and the true will of Canadian voters.
As for May,I would have more respect for her “deal” with Dion if she made Dion’s make a firm binding commitment to “explore” PR.Other than that,why else would she even deal with the Liberals.Only under PR will the Greens will ever have a chance.Makes me wonder what Dion committed to if any thing

For everyone’s attention, the NDP has a motion on electoral reform that will come up for a vote soon. http://www.catherinebellmp.ca/page/151

Will Dion’s caucus fully support the motion?

I’m surprised at how stupid May is. Someone should tell her that in 1921 Mackenzie King made pals with the Progressive Party, and adopted many of thier ideas. Lesson of the story? The Progressive Party is not around anymore.

Was there actually a deal in wiring “inked” between Dion and May If so, shouldn’t we see a copy? whatever deal was made it doesn’t seem there was any hard committment from Dion to electoral reform.

From the Star article cited:

“Dion and May inked a non-aggression pact earlier this month in which the Liberals agreed not to run a candidate against the Green leader in the next federal election and the Greens agreed to not to run a candidate against the Liberal leader.

May briefly mentioned electoral reform at the joint news conference with Dion. In an email and talking points subsequently sent to Green party members, she was more explicit in stating that the deal included Dion recognizing “the need for electoral reform, which the Green Party sees as the need for proportional representation.”

In an interview, May said Dion’s willingness to study electoral reform was not a condition for her participation in the leaders’ non-compete pact. But she said it was important in helping to make the deal more palatable to Greens.”

Perhaps May is more concerned about the promulgation of her ideas than the promulgation of partisanship.

Tom, are you an NDPer? its comments like that which made me leave the party. Unless you can win power and carry out on your ideas, you will always have some other party *cough*liberal*cough* steal the ideas they agree with, and leave the rest in the dust.

I suppose I would consider myself often torn between the Greens and the NDP. I feel no particularly loyalty to any one party.

If the Liberals steal the popular ideas of the NDP and get elected on them, then the popular ideas of the NDP will be enacted and the unpopular ones won’t be. It strikes me as strange that people see some sort of problem with the borrowing of policies when government and voting should be about policies and not parties. Ultimately, it shouldn’t matter which party you’re voting for as long as their policies are a good fit.

good ideas are not always popular ideas

As every referendum has failed and when it fails in Ontario, even lying about being committed to electoral reform is dead.

Neither the Liberals or Conservatives have ever or will enact changes to the voting system that elects them in govt with 35-40% of the popular vote.

If Layton were to pull off a Bob Rae and find himself PM, he would not enact changes to the voting system that gives the only chance of the NDP to have any actual governing power.

If there was a weird electoral earthquake and Liz May found herself the balance of power in a minority govt, she would not force the minority govt to enact changes to the voting system that gave her that one time opportunity.

there are times to campaign for PR. in most provinces, and even federally to a degree, you end up with the electorate swinging to one party for 10 years or so, then swinging back. At near the end of those 10 years, it is in your interest to push for PR, as you forever limit the opposition to minority governments, and since they are due to form the next government, that short-term goal becomes the thing to drive towards

The NDP in BC didn’t think so from 1996-2001 when they knew they were doomed and even with the resulting Leg at 77-2 the people voted down a change to the voting system.

As the system self corrected in that election where the referendum was conducted, the next referendum will not come close to the last one.

Nick, if they’re not popular, they won’t be implemented (by any party) no matter how good they are. We live in a democracy.