Editor’s note: This commentary is by Steve May, who is a clinical social worker specializing in addiction medicine and has previously worked in multiple capacities for bleeding disorders health advocacy organizations; he resides in Richmond, where he is also on the town Selectboard.
[T]he Conservative Party of Canada just selected its new parliamentary leader. In doing so it chose a system which allowed the most people to be involved in the selection process, and permitted for the greatest level of public engagement possible. Across the right wing of Canadian politics, social conservatives, libertarians and fiscal hawks all came together under the umbrella of an electoral process which spotlighted the next generation of Conservative Party leadership. They choose instant runoff voting. Yeah, the same system Burlington voters ditched. They had 13 candidates and 12 rounds of balloting, and through this process have a consensus leader. They also have discovered new talent who would likely be on the front benches of any future Conservative Party government whenever they take power next.
Let’s be clear; the Conservatives didn’t pick this selection process just because. The seasoned election warriors who led the Tories to form four consecutive governments are much too smart for that. Rather, they believed that an open selection process which depends on engaging their individuals within their electoral base serves to renew interest the political process. The Conservatives added more than 100,000 new members during this leadership campaign.
It’s not just Canada’s right fixing the way Canadians elect their member of Parliament. Both of Canada’s major left-leaning parties, the Liberals and New Democrats, have language in their manifestos calling for changing their system to elect members to the House of Commons as part of a larger electoral reform package.
Canada uses the first past the post electoral system, just like us. Canadian politics have seen successful third parties for decades now. Often Canadian lawmakers are elected with a plurality, but not a majority, meaning that a majority of voters in a given district may not have voted for a given candidate. In effect, this member would have no mandate to govern or legislate.
The first past the post is very stable. As electoral systems go, it favors large voting blocks and effectively trades stability for democratic engagement. In selecting a first past the post system, it was inconceivable to our founding fathers that political parties, factions or interests form would eventually come into being as they wrote the Constitution. These men in their fear of the unwashed masses created a system which virtually guaranteed the formation of a two-party duopoly. From an anthological perspective, creating an “us” and “them” is as natural as taking one’s next breath.
Without question Vermont is every bit as dynamic a political culture as Canada. The Progressives have been a fixture of Vermont political landscape for a generation. Routinely Progressives earn more than 10 percent statewide. Other third parties, Libertarians and Greens, as well as numerous protest movements have had their moments of political rise, but our electoral system doesn’t allow those choices to gain access to the halls of power. Instead, they are reduced to attempting to influence other elected officials.
The institutions meant to represent us have evolved as our society and our values have evolved.
A more responsive electoral system keeps us in step with the vast majority of democracies around the world. For example, Australia and New Zealand ditched their first past the post electoral systems for a fairer, more inclusive one decades ago. Among the Western world, only Canada, the U.K. and U.S. use the first past the post system. Canada is considering a replacement of its electoral system, and Britain, when it devolved power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, required all of the new elected bodies in Cardiff, Glasgow and Belfast be elected through some form of proportional representation. Found so, it was figured it would tamp down nationalism in Scotland and Northern Ireland. With these growing retreats away from first past the post, the U.S. is increasingly isolated. We are alone standing with a relic of a system which is least representative of the public intended to be served.
First past the post has tended to create more stable governing majorities across time. Our founding fathers created a system designed to insulate legislators from the rabble. At the birth of the Republic, politics was more or less a privilege reserved for the landed gentry. Voting was the exclusive province of rich white men. Poor people, women and people of color need not bother – their fears are evident in our political reality, while in the spirit of establishing a more perfect union we have acted to improve the institutions by making them more responsive and reflective of the overall voting public.
Our voting system has been improved multiple times over the last 250 years. We have adopted new rules both at the state and federal levels to improve the institutions of government. Most of those improvements have leaned in favor of making elected officials more responsive to the public. Once again, it’s time to look at our electoral system. We all have an interest in advancing a more perfect and more inclusive system. A century ago, U.S. senators were appointed by state legislatures. But having found that the state legislators appointing them were subject to manipulation and largess, a Constitutional amendment requiring the direct election of U.S. senators was passed. We’ve extended voting rights to 18-year-olds, we banished the poll tax and limited the presidency to two terms. Today, women can vote, and people of all colors and creed are able to vote. Large-scale change is not limited to federal politics. Not so long ago, the House of Representatives in Montpelier had a representative from every town: 251 members in all. Now, there are 150. The Legislature at one point met in late autumn; now it meets in the winter and spring. The institutions meant to represent us have evolved as our society and our values have evolved.
Once again, we as a society stand at the edge of an important moment. An election system mired in duopoly can only be considered a relic of a bygone era. Vermonters deserve a 21st century electoral system. Vermont is a multi-party democracy. It’s time that our electoral system reflects that reality. Fairness dictates that a political party that gains 15 percent of the vote earns 15 percent of the seats. Fair is fair, after all. Electoral systems which incorporate the principle of proportionality are better able to abide the idea of “majority rules and minority rights.” Proportionality is a concept that really didn’t come into existence for political systems until John Stuart Mills popularized it some 50 years after our Constitution was ratified by the states.
Progress is a core belief and progress is central to the Vermont political experience. Proportionality must be key to advancing political progress in Vermont. It’s time that new voices are permitted into our civic life. Electoral reform is necessary to renew lagging levels of voter engagement. Be clear; the public is voting with their feet. Inaction is action. Choosing to not vote is a rejection of the entire system, not the product of laziness or apathy. Huge swaths of the public don’t show up and don’t vote because they feel like they can’t make an impact through the electoral process or be heard by policy makers at the most basic level. We all have an interest in a renewed and more robust level of public engagement. Like Canada, Vermont has become an increasingly diverse political culture. More meaningful political choice is a value we all ought to be able to support.
Our electoral system today prioritizes the maintenance and preservation of power. It works for the people who have been elected under it, but leaves throngs of Vermonters unheard, underrepresented and disenfranchised. Legislative politics should not be like a high stakes card game with one winner and everyone else shut out. We can’t afford casino politics. Rather, legislative politics in Vermont must be more inclusive. Winner-take-all politics should be banished to the ash heap of history. Instead, we need a new model which is inclusive and represents the best of Vermont. Proportionality is a principle worth fighting for when we talk about democratic reforms. Our legislature should look like the people of Vermont. It should demonstrate the richness of ideological diversity that makes Vermont unique. Asking that the richness of political diversity be represented in Montpelier should be something we all agree on.
