FairVote Feed: Americas

Electoral Reform on the Move in Canada

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:15:17 -0700

Things are looking up for electoral reformers in Canada.

A new poll from Environics, a Canadian research firm, shows that 70% of Canadians would favor a move to proportional representation for Canada's Parliament. That support transcends party lines, with at least 60% of Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats preferring any kind of proportional representation to Canada's current winner-take-all system. Respondents identifying with the New Democratic Party, which currently controls nearly a third of seats in the House of Commons, were especially enthusiastic, backing proportional representation at an 82% rate.

FairVote Canada has led the movement for fair voting, and the conversation about serious electoral reform is likely to be particularly relevant in advance of the 2015 elections, as national polls show an electorate split among Canada's three major parties.

And it's not just proportional representation - last week, the Liberal Party held its leadership elections using ranked choice voting. The elections went smoothly, though the winner was never in doubt: Justin Trudeau received over 78% of first choice rankings en route to a landslide victory. Trudeau himself has advocated for using ranked choice voting for the House of Commons, and the Liberal Party as a whole voted last January to support ranked choice voting for all future national elections.

The Liberal Party used a somewhat unconventional method of ranked choice voting in its leadership election, as Trudeau was not elected by direct popular vote. Each Canadian federal district (a "riding") received an equal number of points, and those points were allocated to candidates in each riding in proportion to the number of first choice rankings they received. Had no candidate won a majority of points after the first round of point-allocation (as Trudeau did), the voters who ranked the candidate with the least number of points first would have had their votes transfer to their second choices, giving points to those candidates instead. That process would have continued until a candidate had a majority of points, as in a traditional instant runoff voting election.

Regardless of the added complexity of the point system, however, the Liberal Party's use of ranked choice voting allowed voters to honestly express their preferences on their ballots, preventing any possibility of "spoiler" candidates or a candidate winning with a small plurality of support.

Meanwhile, the movement for ranked choice voting is gaining steam in Toronto, where Dave Meslin is leading an initiative to win RCV for Toronto's mayoral elections. With the backing of FairVote Canada, Meslin's Ranked Ballot Initiative of Toronto (RaBIT) has a strong chance to succeed in advance of the mayoral election in 2014. Toronto is certainly a city in need of voting reform - its current mayor, Rob Ford, won election without a majority of support in 2010.

As the United States makes slow but steady progress toward a fair electoral system, it's nice to see our northern brethren keeping up.

Mexico's Divisive Presidential Election System

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 06:52:05 -0700

By allowing for plurality victories in a three-party system, Mexico faces political instability at the federal level continuing long after the July 1, 2012 presidential election. Indeed, Mexico regularly has non-majority outcomes with controversy over potential "spoiling" of the result. The last candidate to win a majority of ballots cast was Carlos Salinas in 1988, and his tally is widely suspected of having been inflated through government fraud.

Mexico has held regular presidential elections every six years since strongman Lázaro Cárdenas came to power in 1934 under the banner of the National Revolutionary Party (PNR). The PNR went through two name changes afterward, eventually taking the moniker Partido Revolucionario Institucional, or the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). The PRI effectively became Mexico's "state party," dominating both federal and local elections and capturing every presidential election, increasingly through fraud and corruption, until Vicente Fox of the National Action Party (PAN) won the 2000 presidential election. Although the PRI no longer dominates Mexican political office, it remains one of the three major party contenders, along with the PAN, seen as more free market oriented, and the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), positioned to the left of the PRI.

The Mexican Constitution provides for the President to be elected through direct popular vote with only a plurality of votes cast. This type of first-past-the-post system normally gives majorities in two-candidate races or those in which third party candidates have little support. With three major political parties, however, majorities become far less likely, and plurality winners may actually lose a huge majority of the popular vote and take office only because of a divided majority. The three presidential elections held since the widely-acknowledged freeing of the ballot box in the mid-1990s all resulted in only a plurality win for each of the victors, and a successively smaller plurality at that, as the Mexican party system gradually evolved from the clientelistic control of the PRI to a viable three-party system.

The Clash of '06

The presidential election of 2006 proved the susceptibility of the plurality-win system to fraud in such a narrow race, and to popular discontent when the winning candidate lacks support from a large majority. Initial results showed a highly contested race between PAN candidate Felipe Calderón and PRD candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador, with PRI candidate Roberto Madrazo taking a somewhat distant third.

The close preliminary results triggered an automatic recount, in which Calderón bested López Obrador by 243,934 votes, just 0.58 percent of the total. Calderón's winning percentage, however, fell barely higher than one-third all votes, at 35.89 percent. Viewed another way, a full 64.11 percent of votes were not cast for Mr. Calderón, but for the other two major party candidates, numerous smaller party candidates, independents, write-ins, and in blank ballot protest votes.

A winning plurality for Mr. Calderón meant that only 35.89 percent of voters, only slightly more than one-third, felt properly represented, while as many as 64.11 percent did not receive proper presidential representation for the next six years. Since democratic practice insists on a majority of popular support with respect to the rights of political and social minorities, an administration lacking majority support at the outset also lacks a moral right to govern, set agendas, and implement policies.

Mr. Calderón's time in office has seen great social and political instability in Mexico. It is likely that his administration's policies do not adequately reflect the wishes of a majority of Mexicans who supported other candidates in 2006. The same can be said for previous presidents who won with less than majority support in past elections, and for future presidents who continue to be elected under this outmoded system.

Unresolved Issues: The 2012 Election

The 2012 presidential election in Mexico will be held on July 1 and pits the three major-party candidates against one another: Enrique Peña Nieto of the PRI, Andrés Manuel López Obrador again of the PRD, and Josefina Vázquez Mota of the ruling PAN. Mr. Peña Nieto has led most polling since November 2011, followed by 2006 near-winner Mr. López Obrador and Ms. Vázquez Mota battling for second place.

Student protests in May against Mr. Peña Nieto as the candidate of the once-dominant PRI, however, have effectively boosted Mr. López Obrador's poll numbers and place him in closer contention with Mr. Peña Nieto. The student protests also had the effect of launching the second presidential debate, held on June 10, onto major broadcast television and a national audience. As all candidates come under increased scrutiny, polling is likely to again fluctuate. If no candidate ends up securing a majority of the popular vote on July 1, however, Mexico will again find itself led, perhaps controversially, by the winner of the simple plurality, and again discounting the wishes of the majority of Mexican voters.

A Majoritarian Fix

FairVote advocates a reform that both ensures winning candidates receive majority support even in the face of multiple candidacies and gives value to individual voter choice. Most presidential elections around the world rely on two-round runoff elections, as discussed in FairVote's 2006 report on presidential elections around the world.

Used to elect Ireland's president, Instant Runoff Voting provides for more efficient and more representative elections than does plurality voting and even two-round voting, as discussed by Erin Ellis in her blogpost on the Egyptian presidential elections.

Advocated by FairVote's Rob Richie for elections in North America by an Election Law Journal article in 2004, IRV allows voters to rank the candidates in a race, putting "1" by the candidate they prefer the most, a "2" for the candidate they prefer next, and so on, until all candidates receive a rank. After tallying all voters' first-ranked choices, the candidate who receives the lowest level of support is eliminated. The second-ranked choices of voters who selected the now-eliminated candidate as their first choice are then added to the totals of the remaining candidates. This process is repeated until only two candidates remain and one of them receives an outright majority.

You can read more about FairVote's ideas about Instant Runoff Voting here.

Brazil's Presidential Hopefuls Face Runoff, National Congress Needs Reform

Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:13:25 -0700

On October 31st, a runoff will take place in Brazil’s presidential election. The leading candidate, Dilma Rousseff of the Worker’s Party (PT), failed to gain the 50% majority needed during the first round on October 3rd with just 47%. Rousseff will face Jose Serra of the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB) who won 33% of the vote. Rousseff has been favored from the start riding President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s popularity and success during his two terms in office.

During the first round of voting, Rousseff won the lead but was denied an outright victory since Green Party candidate, Marina Silva, earned 19% of the vote. Silva was eliminated in the first round and her voters will play a key role in the outcome of the election. Silva’s final tally unexpectedly exceeded her polling results by 5 percentage points while Rousseff did not meet the high numbers the polls had given her.

Without a doubt, Silva’s Green Party and its supporters will be critical for electoral success in the presidential election. Some of Silva’s supporters have decided to back Serra and both candidates are reportedly trying to earn Silva’s endorsement as well as curry her party’s favor. Although Rousseff ran a fierce campaign, she ultimately failed to convince enough voters to avoid a second round of voting. With respect to Brazil’s congressional elections, Rousseff’s party seems to be in good shape. Her party, the PT, has gained 9 seats in the Chamber of Deputies while Serra’s PSDB lost 12 deputies.

Brazil’s electoral system works well in terms of the presidential and gubernatorial election process in which a runoff takes place in the event of neither candidate reaching a majority, as is the case now. However, the National Congress uses different voting systems in the Federal Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. Those in the Federal Senate are elected by a plurality of votes (the first-past-the-post system) rather than an actual majority. The Chamber of Deputies uses an open list proportional voting system which should guarantee diverse voter choice by allowing the option of voting for a party instead of a candidate.

In the Federal Senate, election results concerning party representation vastly differ from the results in the Chamber of Deputies. In 2006, the Democrats (PFL at the time) represented the lowest percentage with 10.9% of the Chamber of Deputies. On the other hand, in the Federal Senate the Democrats represented 25.7% of their seats, the highest representation among the major parties. As a result, the Federal Senate does a poor job of representing Brazil’s political landscape.

Some argue that the rules concerning the number of seats allocated in the Chamber of Deputies are poorly designed. In the Chamber of Deputies, each state must have a minimum of 8 seats and a maximum of 70 seats proportional to each state’s population. These seating regulations harm proportional representation because less populated states are overrepresented while densely populated states are underrepresented.

In Brazil, the electoral system for the National Congress is in need of reform. Voting is compulsory in Brazil for 18-70 year olds who are literate so turnout isn’t an issue. The Federal Senate is especially troubling since its members are elected by a plurality. The Chamber of Deputies does a better job of representing Brazil’s population due to the use of proportional representation but the seating limits restrict this system’s potential to truly reflect Brazil’s voters.

Term Limits Strengthen Colombia's Democracy

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:28:39 -0800

A couple of weeks ago, the Colombian Constitutional Court rejected legislation calling for a constitutional referendum on whether presidential term limits should be increased from two to three terms. This decision prevented President Alvaro Uribe from running for a third straight term in office and sent a strong signal to the international community: the burgeoning Colombian democracy won’t be part of the autocratic wave in South America.

Uribe was first elected in 2002 for a non-renewable four-year term. In 2005, he won a constitutional amendment extending the term limit from one to two terms, which enabled him to successfully run for reelection in 2006. After eight years as President, he still retains very high approval ratings and was leaving open the possibility of running again for the presidency in May 2010 despite the Constitution’s two-term limit.

Both the Colombian Senate and House of Representatives had overwhelmingly approved in 2009 the bill authorizing a referendum on presidential term limits. It stated, “Whoever has been elected president of the republic for two constitutional terms can be elected solely for one other term.”

The final step before the proposed constitutional reform could be put to a popular vote was to get approval from the national Constitutional Court. And the Court fully played its role of ultimate institutional shield by ruling 7 to 2 against it. The decision was founded on irregularities in the process of passing the referendum. Consequently, President Uribe is not running for a third term.

This is how Colombia distinguishes itself, in an encouraging way, from its neighbors such as Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez recently undermined democracy by using his authority as president to change the Venezuelan Constitution to become president-for-life.

Uribe is exceptionally popular thanks to successful security policies against terrorism and drug cartels. As a result, if he had been allowed to run again, he would most likely have been reelected. However, a third term would have inevitably damaged the integrity of the Colombian institutions, established under the 1991 Constitution. Being in office for 12 years would have enabled Uribe to permanently alter Colombia’s institutional checks and balances by appointing most of the Constitutional Court and the Top Generals.

By confirming the current presidential term limit, the Constitutional Court showed a sign of institutional stability and democratic progress. Colombia, which is holding parliamentary elections this month, and presidential elections in May, is indeed on its way towards a strengthened democratic state and teaches a tremendous lesson about democracy: no one is irreplaceable to lead a country and the renewal of politicians ultimately revitalizes the country by putting new life into politics.

Our FairVote intern Maxine Katz contributed to this post.

Hugo Chavez's Electoral Reforms

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:01:42 -0700

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently compelled the Venezuelan National Assembly to alter the nation's electoral laws. Previously, 60% of seats in the National Assembly were elected from single and multi member districts by plurality vote while the remaining 40% were chosen from proportional party lists. Now, the ratio will be respectively 70% and 30%. Critics have rightly alleged these changes make the electoral system less proportional and less fair. Smaller parties will be negatively affected by these changes; more votes will be required to win a lesser number of list seats.

Additionally, there was another change: the National Electoral Council was empowered to redraw district boundaries. Many are fearful this is a prelude to a gerrymandering spree by ruling party and a further limiting of opposition prospects. President Chavez and his supporters have claimed the changes stem from a desire to better represent the 'majority will,' which has supposedly been stunted under the current arraignment. A cursory glance at recent election results underlines the spuriousness of this argument; in the 2005 National Assembly elections, Chavez's Fifth Republic Movement won 114 of the 168 seats up for election. Shortly after his successful reelection effort in 2006, President Chavez merged the Fifth Republic Movement with several smaller parties in an effort to create a what he termed a 'unified Bolivarian party.' This new party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, has 139 seats in the National Assembly. If the largest party has 84% percent of the seats in a given legislature, it does not reflect a lack of majority representation.

President Chavez is frequently portrayed as a socialist martinet, blinded by his ambition to remake Venezuela into a model citizen of an outmoded utopian past. Others strongly defend his reforms, suggesting the real culprits are the twin evils of American imperialism and unrestricted capitalism. The truth likely lies between these polarized extremes, but Chavez's attempts to undermine Venezuelan democracy do nothing to burnish his credentials as a man of the people.

A Hacienda of Cards? The Mexican Congressional Election and the 'Voto Nulo' Movement

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:03:19 -0700

One day after the United States celebrates its founding, Mexicans will go to the polls to elect new members to the lower house of Congress.� All 500 seats in the Chamber of Deputies will be up for election on July 5, 300 chosen through the plurality system familiar to Americans, with 200 'top-up' seats allocated proportionally according to the vote share earned by each party. In political science parlance, this method is known as the Mixed-Member-Proportional or MMP system. Rather uniquly, article 59 of Mexico's constitution forbids prevents legislators from standing for reelection in consecutive contests; voters will be choosing an entirely new chamber. This is a mid-term contest, falling between the sexennial battle for the presidency, when the entire Congress � including the Senate � is up for election. In common with mid-term elections in the states, apathy is unfortunately common. This year, the electorate's disinterest has gotten a good deal of press; a vocal 'voto nulo' (nul-vote) movement has sprung from the grassroots and is turning heads by asking voters to cast symbolically spoiled ballots. Logistical difficulties have cropped up as well; the recent swine-flu scare necessitated awkwardly regulated political rallies, where supporters must stand several feet apart. Somewhat unusually, the current conflict between the government and various drug cartels has been the most salient issue in the campaign. This 'war' has been so intense that some observers have suggested that Mexico is a 'failed state' unable to guarantee domestic security.

These problems have led most prognosticators to predict gains for the center-left Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) along with losses from the governing center-right Partido Acci�n Nacional (PAN). The socialist Partido Revolucionario Democr�tico (PRD) � associated with the unpopular leadership of the controversial Andr�s Manuel L�pez Obrador � is expected to lose ground as well. Though L�pez Obrador very nearly won the presidency in 2006; his ungracious post-election behavior has alienated many voters from the PRD. The 'voto nulo' movement's success may be partly due to the PRD's fall from grace; the major alternative is now the PRI, which ruled Mexico in an increasingly heavy-handed and corrupt fashion for 71 years until voters cast the party out of the presidency and into the wilderness in 2000. Thus, the contest is between different flavors of the establishment, leading to voter disenchantment and resentment.

A final explanation for the success of 'voto nulo' can be derived from a quirk in the electoral system.� In most MMP systems, balloting entails two votes; one for a constituency candidate, the other for a party; constituency seats are decided by plurality rules, the top-up seats are then allocated to ensure that each party has roughly the same percentage of seats as votes. Conversely, the Mexican system allows only one vote, for a constituency candidate. These votes do double duty, based on the affiliation of a given constituency candidate, they also count as party votes. According to a study by Professors Clemente Quinones and Richard Vengroff of the University of Connecticut, this unorthodox method was implemented in the 1980s by the PRI, which hoped it would decrease sincere voting and allow the party to remain in office. However � to briefly summarize � the study concludes that most voters adapted to the system after a period of strategic voting, and largely returned to casting sincere ballots by the 2000 election (when the PRI lost power). Mexico's democracy is still learning to walk upright as it were, the long period of PRI domination only receded 9 years ago. It seems that voters are upset less with their system of voting than with the national political culture. However, Mexico has developed into an impressively open and pluralistic polity in a short period of time; those considering the arguments of the 'voto nulo' movement should keep in mind that the Mexican MPP system ensures that diverse views will be represented; for those who cast valid ballots, that is.

Nova Scotia Votes

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:40:10 -0700

Tuesday saw voters in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia choosing to end six years of minority governments and ten years of center-right Progressive Conservative administrations; instead, they made history by handing victory to the New Democratic Party (NDP). A social-democratic party, the NDP has never before formed a government east of Ontario. Despite all the excitement and speculation concerning the meaning of this dramatic result, there are some troubling signs. While unquestionably a sweeping victory for the NDP, the election featured a prominent drawback common to plurality elections; the winning party received a notably higher percentage of seats than votes:

Results (52 Seats total)

NDP:� 45.26% vote, 31 seats (59.6%)

Liberals: 27.22% vote, 11 seats (21.2%)

Progressive Conservatives: 24.52% vote, 10 (19.2%)

Green: 2.33% vote, 0 seats (0%)

These figures indicate the NDP won roughly 60% of the available seats with roughly 45% of the vote. Elections in Canada, which often feature four or five major parties contesting a riding (the Canadian term for district), frequently exhibit this problem. I find the fact that this empirically 'exciting' election attracted the lowest voter turnout in the province's history suggestively disturbing. Under Canada's parliamentary system a majority government is akin to an elective dictatorship, thus the NDP will have full control of the province with this minority mandate for the next four to five years. It is little wonder that voters were unmoved, little could be done to alter a distorted outcome. Nova Scotia, with its strong three-party system, should look into a fairer election system that will not unduly favor the winner; otherwise, further distortion and apathy will result, no matter how historic the election.

Final Push for Choice Voting (STV) in British Columbia

Fri, 08 May 2009 17:16:15 -0700

British Columbians are split on STV according to the latest poll conducted by Angus Reid. With just a few days to go, British Columbians for BC-STV are working overtime to counter the inaccurate and often misleading information propagated by the No-STV campaign. For a factual rebuttal check out "STV: Your guide through the spin and the fear" by Dr. Dennis Pilon, author of The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada's Electoral System.

The former Deputy Premier Christy Clark, a politician turned civilian, is also speaking out against the No-STV's self-serving tactics:

FairVote's Board Chair, Krist Novoselic, also hit the road to British Columbia to help diffuse some of the negative publicity. Check out his print interview with Georgia Straight, read about his visit to News Radio 1130 or listen to Krist talk about electoral reform on the Jeff O'Neill Show or on CBC (Canada's national public radio).

Or read about his experience in Krist's own words on his blog at Seattle Weekly.

British Columbians Get Ready to Vote on Choice Voting

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:31:21 -0700

On May 12^th, British Columbians will head to the polls to vote on a provincial referendum regarding the way they elect members to the Legislative Assembly. The two options are 1) The existing electoral system (known as First-Past-The-Post or the single-member district system) or 2) The choice voting (locally termed single transferable vote electoral system, locally termed BC-STV) which is a proportional voting system.

Leading the campaign in support of the change is British Columbians for BC-STV, an ad-hoc group of reformers from Fair Vote Canada (not affiliated with FairVote in the United States) and former members of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. The Citizens' Assembly was formed in 2004 to assess electoral reform and is made up of 160 ordinary voters who spent eleven months mastering the issue. Based on the three basic values of fair results, effective representation and increased voter choice, the assembly recommended overwhelmingly to support choice voting.

This isn't the first time British Columbians have voted on this issue; in May 2005, followoing the Citizens' Assembly recommendations, a 58% majority of voters cast their ballot in support of BC-STV but narrowly missed the supermajority requirement of 60%. For the May 12th referendum, proponents will have to once again earn over 60% overall approval and a simple majority in 60% of the provincial electoral districts.

This Friday, FairVote's Board Chair Krist Novoselic will be participating in a forum on BC-STV in Vancouver. For more information about the campaign or for ways to get involved please visit: www.stv.ca

Achieving universal voter registration while ensuring a high level of privacy protection: The Canadian model

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:41:27 -0800

Canada has a system of universal voter registration: this means that the Canadian government has largely taken on the onus of registering its citizens to vote. It does so by capturing the information needed to register voters when citizens interact with various branches and agencies of the Canadian government. The Canadian system is highly protective of personal details, privacy and freedom of speech thanks to numerous institutional and procedural safeguards to the use and display of the National Register of Electors. First of all, the National Register of Electors is maintained by Elections Canada, an independent federal agency set up by the Canadian Parliament and headed by the Chief Electoral Officer. To avoid political partisanship in the administration of federal elections, this independency is protected in many ways: the Chief Electoral Officer is appointed by a resolution of the House of Commons, so that all parties represented there may contribute to the selection process. Once appointed, he reports directly to Parliament and is thus completely independent of government and political parties. In addition, he serves until retirement or resignation; he can be removed only for cause, by the Governor General following a joint address of the House of Commons and Senate.

Secondly, even though the National Register of Electors is updated thanks to information supplied by various government agencies it is important to note that there is no database linkage between Elections Canada and these data suppliers. Only basic information about each qualified voter (� name, address, sex and date of birth), indispensable to administrate an election, is extracted from these agencies' databases and sent to Elections Canada. More importantly, these information can only be transfered to Elections Canada with the � active and informed � consent of the individuals concerned. This means that citizens have to check a box on their income tax returns, citizenship application or change of address form to specify whether or not they want their name, address and date of birth to be forwarded to Elections Canada. They also have the right to have their information excluded from the National Register of Electors or prevent its transfer to the provinces and territories by writing to the Chief Electoral Officer. Not having their name and personal details on the NRE does not jeopardize their right to vote, since they still can register on Election Day. This opt-out provisions allow people not to be registered who don't wish to be registered � for security, religious or political reasons. Thirdly, there are many legal restrictions to the use of the voters list. The privacy of all information in the National Register of Electors is protected by the Canada Elections Act and the Privacy Act. Under these acts, the NRE information is made available to political parties and member of the House of Commons each year, and candidates at the time of an election, but can only be used for electoral purposes (such as in soliciting contributions and recruiting members). Any other use is an offence. The political parties, deputies and candidates who are given access to the list have to sign a declaration acknowledging that they will use the list only for electoral purposes and destroy it when they don't need it anymore. Even inside Elections Canada, access to the NRE is provided only to Elections Canada staff members who have been subject to a security clearance at the appropriate level and have a need to use it. When these staff members can perform their functions properly with a paper copy, they are not provided an electronic copy. The lists are kept secure thanks to locked offices, filling cabinets, password protection and encryption. This process is highly reliable and trusted, to the extent that a few month ago, Pakistani Election Commission even asked Elections Canada to store pakistan's electoral roll, because Pakistan itself does not have the infrastructure to prevent hackers from accessing these rolls.

Finally, a Privacy Commissioner (independent civil servant who reports directly to the Parliament) has the right, at any time, to audit how information for the National Register of Electors is collected, stored, updated and used to ensure that the elector's right to privacy is respected. His powers include investigating complaints, conducting audits, pursuing court action under federal laws, and releasing public reports on information-handling practices.