Here's a guest opinion that recently ran on the editorial pages of a newspaper I once delivered, Charlotteotown, PEI's, The Guardian - which covers my native province like the dew every morning. I thought it need some good coverage on the violations of Charter democratic rights that are taken for granted by many political elites.

Looking past the politics of electoral boundaries

By Mark Greenan
Guest Opinion

The top story in The Guardian May 5 informs Islanders that “P.E.I. politicians threw out a political map … painstakingly put together by an independent commission” and will ask Elections P.E.I. to draft new boundaries.
The decision by a legislative committee composed solely of PC MLAs (the Liberals wisely boycotted the unnecessary committee) and chaired by Agriculture Minister Jim Bagnall will likely mean that P.E.I.’s electoral map will be again going before the courts to see if it is permissible under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My opinion, based upon Canadian election law, is that any new map will quite likely be thrown out by the courts — all at taxpayer expense of course.
The Guardian story informs us that Bagnall trusts Elections P.E.I. to ensure that any boundaries “keep communities of interest together.”
I must admit I’m puzzled by his comments. The superb 2004 report prepared by the Commission on Electoral Boundaries, chaired by Justice John A. McQuaid of the P.E.I. Supreme Court, looked at Canadian election law and drew its map based upon 14 principles and facts of which one was ‘community of interest’. The commissioners identify three distinct communities of interest — urban Islanders, rural Islanders and the Acadian community of ‘la Région Evangeline’. The map they propose represents all three of those groups fairly, for the 56 per cent of Islanders living in rural areas are a significant majority in an identical proportion of seats — 15 of the 27 districts in the new map. Inversely, the communities of Cornwall, Stratford, Summerside and Charlottetown are the majority in 12 districts. Also, there is a district in West Prince, the smallest in the proposed map, where francophone voters are in the majority.
Does Bagnall mean that the boundaries don’t keep specific communities of interest together? Surely, he is aware that all districts in the new map are centred on a “family of schools” and that the McQuaid commission already made seven specific boundary changes in response to public input — over 100 oral or written submissions — on a draft electoral map made public in the summer of 2004. If there are only a few small changes that particular communities are demanding, let the government explain what they are publicly and make the changes quickly.
But as readers of the McQuaid report should know, electoral boundaries cannot be drawn to favour rural voters. In the Island case — the continued over-representation of voters west of Summerside and in eastern P.E.I. — cannot continue. To say otherwise is to grossly misinterpret previous court cases on voting rights and electoral boundaries from both Island and Canadian courts.
As the McQuaid report clearly explains “the courts have (never) accepted that the purpose of the variance of plus or minus 25 per cent is to allow for the over-representation of citizens who live outside the four large municipalities. In our respectful opinion if this was the intent of the legislature, if this is the purpose of the variance and if this is the plain meaning of the section, it is unconstitutional.”
It should also be noted that since such a court case would deal with the democratic rights under section 3 of the charter they cannot be overridden by the ‘notwithstanding clause’.
To put it another way, any map that does not have seven seats for Charlottetown, three seats for Summerside, one each for Cornwall and Stratford will be thrown out by the courts.
Of course, this also means that western and eastern P.E.I. must each lose a seat due to their population decline over the past decade (and only fair, considering ridings in those areas were among the least populated when the current map was drafted 12 years ago).
Perhaps the fact that this means a government MLA in West Prince and Kings County will each see their seat migrate to suburban areas that have been more fertile territory for the Liberals in recent elections is really the interest at stake in this issue.
As Canadian political scientist and expert on electoral boundary law John Courtenay has written, “sometimes what is claimed as a community of interest is, in fact, nothing more than barely disguised political self-interest on the part of a politician or a highly parochial understanding of the concept on the part of interested members of the public.”
I would recommend to Elections P.E.I. that it respectfully decline to amend the boundaries proposed in the McQuaid report. To do otherwise would seriously compromise its perceived neutrality, particularly considering the Official Opposition’s clearly expressed objections to revising the independent commission’s report. There is no other province in Canada where the boundaries are not de facto set by a publicly accessible commission independent of government — all Island voters deserve no less.

Mark Greenan, a native of Summerside , is a master of arts candidate in political science at the University of Ottawa

Well, I didn't get the position on the executive of FVC I had hoped for but I did enjoy an excellent weekend at their annual general meeting the weekend of April 22nd.

Also, the next weekend I had the pleasure of speaking at a unique meeting back in my home province of PEI. It was organized by some good friends from the Yes on MMP Coalition, the unique organization I head the great pleasure of coordinating this past Fall and some other Islanders who had worked on the No campaign.

I thought my readers and the blogosphere might be interested in what I said. I've been accused of "preening my feathers" but I proudly stand by what I wrote - so I'll share it with the world.

As I’m sure I’ve told many of you in private, working with the Yes Coalition was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life so far and I’d like to take this chance to thank you all publicly for your time, energy and hard work. As I said on November 28, I hope that one day we can bring your talents across the way, inside Province House – Island life will be much richer for it.

Before I start, I’d like to thank all those who’ve worked to make this event possible. Especially those who I did not work with this Fall – I particularly hope we can work together on improving Island democracy – a truly non-partisan issue - in the future.

Politics is personal­ – I learned that this Fall! But standing here before a room of political Islanders, I guess you all know that already. So I’m sure you’ll understand if I speak a little personally tonight about what brought me here before you today

I hope if I give some of frank opinions, some of you won’t take them personally. I respect the contributions you have all made to Island public life – when I said that during the campaign I meant it – and I hope that when I’m as experienced as others will say the same about me.

As I was asked many times during the campaign, I’m Gerard and Elizabeth Greenan’s son. You know, the teachers from Summerside. Yeah, my Dad’s a Liberal.

So I guess taking a semester off my M.A. thesis to teach Islanders about electoral reform was natural to me. But as I’ve said before, my experiences observing hours of legislative debate from the position of eager young page boy (as our Ottawa bosses told us – “just being part of the furniture”) have shown me that our current electoral system is a pre-democratic abomination that should have been cast away centuries ago like so many other institutions - slavery, patriarchy and political patronage – wait that one’s alive and well, and I quote the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court here, “a systemic problem the existence of which is so notorious and longstanding it requires no formal proof”.

Five months later, I’m still disappointed that I obviously didn’t educate enough Islanders. I think we can all agree most voters felt did not feel sufficiently informed on the issue, many clearly didn’t feel it was worth their time – or would make much difference to them.

But I’ve asked here to speak about lessons learned from the Nov. 28 plebiscite. Forgive me if I tell a personal story.

For me, one night I had in mid-November just about summed up so much of the experience for me. I had spent the night in a small kitchen party with some good friends from high school and – as was the case in a great deal of the personal conversations I was having this Fall – the topic shifted to electoral reform. And I was once again asked to explain the mechanics of the system to people whose political sophistication, and in this case admittedly, was below average. After a few minutes I think they started to get it we starting asking ourselves, as a group, to find how I could use more descriptive metaphors to show how the system works. And in a serendipitous moment, one of my best friends so eloquently described it – “so the two ballots, it’s like you CAN VOTE for two different teams”.

And in that instant, my friend not only provided a pretty good way to sum up the issue I was trying to explain to Islanders but he also captured that mindset, regrettably, of so many Islanders and far too many of our political leaders. And as I heard historian Desmond Morton say the weekend before the plebiscite, in the context of the sponsorship scandal mind you, “that those who would use sporting or was metaphors in politics are the LAST people that should be in government”.

In another way, my friend also summed up the main distinction between MMP, and indeed all proportional voting systems, and FPTP. In a landmark study of 36 Western democracies, called Patterns of Democracy distinguished political scientist Arend Lijphart compared the performance of the wide variety of electoral systems used in those countries. Proportional systems, or as he calls them consensus democracies, tend to promote a political culture that is inclusive, collaborative and open to compromise. Majoritarian systems, such as the current winner-take-all system, tend to promote an exclusive, confrontational and adversarial politics, as two dominant parties vie for majority control of the legislature.

It’s obvious which describes Island politics better. The sporting metaphor describes how Island political life unfolds and how so many people see politics here.

“It’s our team versus theirs.”

“Oh this system’s is going to let losers in”

And that reality slobbered in my face hours later as we headed to a local pub and a fellow young Islander recognized me. “Hey you’re that Yes guy.”

Personally, I can be a little retiring around strangers so I said nothing.

“Why do you want that stupid system, I’m voting No.” he shouted.

I uttered something about fairness, choice and strong oppositions and went to move on.

He pressed on – “Why are you doing this?”

“Well I think it’s important for PEI and Canada we change the way we vote”

“What are you?” he asked, frustrated.

I looked at him quizzically.

“What are you? An NDP? Or are you a Green?”

“Frankly, I don’t think that’s any of your business,” I retorted, a little annoyed. I had been raised – perhaps aberrantly on PEI – not to ask about people’s voting intentions.

“I can’t believe you want that MMP thing to win. It’s just gonna mean that people like Leo Broderick (prominent PEI social acitivist) and Sharon Labchuk (environmental activist and PEI Green Party Leader) are gonna get in there and we’re gonna have to listen to them beak off all the time,” he shouted pointing to Province House.

I was speechless. Not only was he insulting two people who I admire personally, enjoyed working with, and I would hope we all could agree have contributed a lot to this province even if we don’t agree with everything they say, but at that moment he came to personify that problematic approach to democratic politics that – and I pains me to say this – seems to characterize my home province.

If you must know, the only political party I’ve been a member of is the Ontario NDP. Federally, I’ve voted Liberal and NDP. Only voted in one provincial election and that was Liberal and a family thing. If I’m living on PEI for the next election I’m undecided.

But my strongest political affiliation is non-partisan – or more accurately, because it’s something that all those who want more accountable, responsive government multi-partisan - I’m a fair voter. By that, I mean that I could never be a member of a political party that did not endorse the principle upon which MMP and all PR systems are based – that all voters are equal and, as much as is reasonable every vote should be reflected in the composition of the legislature. As my friend Larry Gordon, the executive director of Fair Vote Canada terms it – fair voting.

If you run a strong campaign, get about 40 per cent of the vote, like Ms. Mella did thirteen years ago, you get about 40 percent of the seats. Garner the support of 5 per cent of your fellow citizens, like Larry Duchesne did for the NDP that year, you might get a seat in the legislature. Simple – fair voting!

I wish Islanders could be asked that question – do you want a fair voting system – one where the numbers of seats a party gets reflects the number of votes it gets. Ever the optimist, I can help but think they’d vote Yes to that.

But now to be frank, I believe if we are to move forward productively on the issue of electoral reform, we must take a critical look at the Fall’s events.

Because as much as I wish I could say otherwise, November 28^th was NOT a bright day for Island democracy. I believe the plebiscite results reflect:

- lack of knowledge about MMP among many voters

- increased cynicism among voters

- deepening cleavages between urban and rural Islanders, ones stoked by the failures of successive generations of MLAs to take leadership on modernizing our voting system

- low turnout

o partially likely due to lack of polls/voter info cards/lineups? The turnout was much lower than indicated in a survey done by the Electoral Future Commission

- finally, it is difficult to even gauge support for changing our voting system among Islanders, as it seems every second thing the No side was “we support electoral reform, just not this model”

o Impossible to know what proportion of No voters would like to see changes to how we vote

I guess the primary lesson I learned from this Fall was that it’s easier to tear something down than to build something up

It is easier for opponents of fair voting systems to misinform the public than it is for proponents to educate them on the functioning of alternative electoral systems.

We have learned that the executive and legislative branches of government cannot be trusted to play a leadership role in promoting electoral change – or even to ensure a productive, educational discussion on the issue.

Again as I’ve said to members of the group in private discussion, the No side’s work during the Fall can be fairly described as misleading, incorrect, and designed to play upon Islanders’ misconceptions rather than their hopes for a more democratic future.

You were successful in your goal of defeating the MMP proposal. But thanks to your work, Islanders have not learned as much about their electoral options as they might have – and I fear have been unfairly misinformed about MMP, the fair voting system I believe is best suited for our political culture.

If Islanders are ever to have a fair voting system, and I believe the future prosperity of PEI is dependent on this, then the leadership of the PEI Liberal and PC parties must move beyond what I best for their organizations and openly consider alternative voting systems.

Because as I know for a fact, and I’m sure many others here do, that there were high level discussions between those two parties on how to defeat the MMP proposal before Island voters this Fall.

Thankfully, the logic of the first-past-the-post system prevents BOTH of those parties from winning the majority governments they both appear convinced that they will win in the next provincial election.

So I hope that after the election they’ll be able to see beyond their short-term interests and consider how a fair voting system could revitalize Island political life.

If we are to change PEI’s electoral system, I have come to believe it can only occur through an open transparent process that encourages citizen involvement and education.

Therefore, I propose that this group endorse the formation of a Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform, based upon the processes used in British Columbia and Ontario. I believe that together, we can ensure that regardless of the results of the next election, that the PEI government will commit to strike such a citizen’s group.

After all, you showed your political muscle on November 28 – imagine if we all worked together

Without the legitimacy of such a process, based upon the experiences of the Fall, then I fear that any group opposed to any electoral reform proposal will be able to succeed in defeating it, particularly if the undemocratic super-majority threshold used in November’s plebiscite becomes a precedent for future votes.

Finally, I hope that is another issue we could come to a consensus on today that any further public votes on a change of election system for PEI should be won by a simple majority of votes cast. Islanders never voted to have our current system and, despite what was intimated during the campaign, will always be able to be amended by a simple majority vote of the legislature. To place artificial super-majority thresholds on these types of referenda are offensive – could we imagine having votes on minority rights? Women’s rights? Aboriginal rights? How is the right to be represented in parliament by the party of your choice any different?

Thanks for your time and I hope that we can move beyond any disagreement we had this Fall to have a productive day today.

I’ve been a bad blogger (as usual) but now that I’ve put a big pile of student papers away, I can put down some of my thoughts on the issue of electoral reform.

First, let me explain how I became interested in the issue of electoral reform. I grew up in a political home, the kind of place where issues of the day were (and still are whenever I’m back) invariably discussed at the kitchen table. This led to a life-long interest in political affairs, particularly elections.

My interest in legislatures was further developed when I had the opportunity to work as a legislative page – you know those cute teenagers in the black suits bearing water – both in historic Province House in my native Prince Edward Island and the House of Commons. By then end of my year in Ottawa, after having observed hundreds of hours of legislative debate, I had the unmistakable sense that as citizens, we need and can ask for more from our democratic institutions.

I observed grown men and women two or three times my age behave like children. Sadly, in a 21^st Century Canadian legislature, “debate” appears to be far too often characterized by misleading, personal and unwarranted attacks on political opponents rather than a respectful discussion of policy alternatives. At its root, this must be a reflection of the inescapable fact that, due to our outdated first-past-the-post electoral systems, our legislatures reflect neither how we vote nor our diversity. Thanks to our pre-democratic voting system, we are facing the challenges of a new millennium with political institutions that under-represent minority viewpoints, inflame regional tensions and prevent new ideas and perspectives from entering the legislature.

The next year, as a part of co-operative work placement, I worked as a research assistant at the Public Policy Forum, an Ottawa-based think tank. The main project I worked on and certainly the one I enjoyed most was on youth voter turnout – which as I’m sure you are aware is steadily in decline. I studied a good portion of the academic literature on this subject and had come to the inescapable conclusion that talking about increasing voter participation without fixing our broken electoral system is ignoring the reason behind the problem. And when you think about it, does it not make sense that young Canadians of my generation, who are accustomed to unbelievable choice in most areas of their lives – from beauty products to colas to television channels – are being turned off by a political system that reduces the effective choices they can make.

As I continued my university studies, I took every opportunity possible to do more research on proportional electoral systems. In particular, I took an interest in New Zealand electoral politics, as their recent move from a FPTP to a mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system, makes for fascinating study.

Finally, my work on electoral reform was continued this Fall when I had the pleasure of organizing the Yes campaign in the November 2005 plebiscite on an MMP system for my home province of PEI. While the results were not what I had hoped for, the experience was probably the most valuable of my life so far. I got to work with a great and diverse group of Islanders and gained some valuable experience in how to sell electoral reform to my fellow citizens. It is this expertise that I hope bring to the Fair Vote Canada national council.

I’ll have another post soon on some of my ideas for the FVC council and some projects I’d commit to undertaking if elected.

FYI, I'll post my candidate statement for the FVC executive election.

Mark Greenan is a 25-year old M.A. student in political science at the University of Ottawa. He has been a member of Fair Vote Canada since 2002 and has been on the executive of the National Capital Region chapter since 2004.

A lifelong political junkie, his interest in electoral reform was sparked by time spent as a legislative page in the PEI Legislative Assembly and in the House of Commons. From his first-hand observations and academic studies, he passionately believes that all Canadians deserve a fair electoral system that treats every voter equally.

In the fall of 2005, he took leave from his studies to return home to PEI to act as the coordinator for the Yes on MMP Coalition in the November plebiscite. While the result was a personal disappointment, he believes his experience in running a pro-PR campaign would make him an asset for the FVC National Executive. In the coming years, he plans to further his education at a Canadian university with a research focus on electoral reform processes in Canada.

There are two projects he would like to spearhead as an FVC executive member. First, FVC could start to track all current MPs’ positions on electoral reform. Such a database would include public statements, letters to constituents and other information and could be posted online for the public to view and contribute to. Further, it could be expanded to include all candidates in the next federal election. Second, recognizing that my work in PEI meant I did not get to organize much on the U of O campus for our local chapter, I would like to work with other FVC members to develop an “activist kit” for student groups that support fair voting. For more info, visit his blog at http://markgreenan.blogspot.com or email him at markgreenan@gmail.com.

Mark Greenan est 25 ans et étudiant à la maîtrise à l’Université d’Ottawa. Il est membre du Movement pour la representation equitable au Canada depuis 2002 et membre de l’exécutive du chapitre de l’Outaouis depuis 2004.

Durant l’automne 2005, il est devenu doordinator du campaign du Oui dans le plebiscite sur la réforme electoral a l’Ile du Prince Edouard.

Malgré le fait qu’il n’a pas pu traduire toute cette plateforme, il est parfaitement bilingue et il aimerait répondre vos questions en français par courriel à markgreenan@gmail.com.

I've started this personal blog with two things in mind. First, to provide an outlet for some of my musings on politics and democracy and secondly, as a way to communicate some of my ideas with fellow members of Fair Vote Canada - a multi-partisan group calling for electoral reform - a group which I am currently a candidate for their executive board.

Over the next few weeks, look to this space for my thoughts on democratic reform in Canada, some information about how I became interested in this issue and some of my ideas for moving electoral reform forward in the coming years.

Cheers,
Mark Greenan