Instant Runoff Voting in Canada

In May, 2011, the Conservative Party of Canada stunned political pundits by winning a solid majority government of 166 seats - 13 more than required to control the federal government for four and a half years. Instead of winning a minority government as projected, the Conservatives won 53.9 percent of seats available with only 39.6% of the vote. A five-party vote split and Canada’s first-past-the-post style of electoral politics has allowed for a party with only a plurality of votes to control the majority of politics for the first time since 2000.

Electoral reform in Canada is, sadly, not a seriously-considered issue, but that doesn’t mean it’s not necessary. The Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom made electoral reform part of their platform, and their preferred choice, instant run-off voting, was put to the test recently in the UK. Though defeated in the UK, I was curious what would have happened in Canada in 2011 if we used the same system. After a little work, I was able to come up with some answers to that question, but before we get to the exact logistics, let’s take a peek at how things work now, now instant run-off voting would work, and the methodology of my thought experiment.

The Case for Voting

Why should people vote? It's a question I've been asked to answer, especially when confronted by people in my age group who don't understand why the franchise is important, though I am sure there are others.

There's many reasons to vote, and some of them are conditional. In the current Canadian election, it is a possibility that Stephen Harper's Conservatives might get a majority government, giving them the right to rule as they see fit for four years. I choose not to judge here on whether or not this would be a positive thing - it depends on your political preferences, but the choice of whether or not this happens should be partially up to you and your vote.

In Canada, sometimes you live in a riding where the incumbent is going to win. This happens a lot, but your vote is never meaningless. If you vote for a party, that party gets funding for the NEXT election from your vote. Just by voting for the party you favour, you can help them do better next time. In Canadian politics, $2 million dollars is a lot of money - the Reform Party of 1993 won over 50 seats, and they started with $2 million dollars, which is what a million votes for a party would get them next time out.

Sometimes you live in a riding where it's close. That way you can directly affect Parliament. You can help choose if someone makes it or doesn't. If 1000 people had voted differently in 1997, the Liberals wouldn't have won a majority government. 1000 people spread throughout 5 ridings. Your vote has power.

Sometimes you want to show that a national party's platform has traction. The Green Party has gained traction based on their popular vote performance, despite not winning any seats. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians vote Green, and as a result, they get increased screen time. Your vote can show discontent with the current parties and help a new one take form.

But the best reason to vote is that if you do not vote, you do not matter. The government will not put out programs for you, they will not change their habits based on your opinion. They will not see that you exist, and they will ignore you. If you complain, your complaints fall on deaf ears. They will look at you, and your age, and gender, and your race or religion and the statistics, and say, "I know that people your age and location and gender generally don't vote, so...fuck off."

That piece of paper is the power for which regimes have toppled this very year. Every time a vote is cast, you are empowering everyone, including, and especially, yourself.

I don't care who you vote for. Just do it, because democracy always needs you.

Canadian Politics Primer

Okay, I'm sorry if you're one of the Americans who followed me during last night's leadership debate. In case you were wondering what the hell's going on, I'm pleased to present a primer on Canadian federal politics for you, so you too can follow in the fun-filled democratic process in "America's hat". I don't know what kind of country you are to wear a hat that's bigger than all of you, but hey.

Canada has a constitutional monarchy that uses a bicameral parliament in which only one house is elected via direct election using a first-past-the-post system, and the other house is appointed but is mostly ceremonial. If you understand this sentence, I'm pleased to know that you've taken some political science courses! You can stop reading now and interpret the news on your own.

Alright, now that all the political scientists have stopped reading, I can really explain what's going on.

On Military Spending

Let's face it, the F-35 purchase program from the Harper government is one of the big triggers of Canada's current election. Military appropriations is a very difficult issue south of the border as well, especially given the United States' current debate over budget reductions. This contentious issue needs to be considered carefully, and I don't think that military appropriations should be considered with the same "axe" that often guts other programs.

Both Canada and the United States maintain our levels of defense by waging a qualitative war; we have accepted that, in the pursuit of a professional, non-conscription based army, we will not outnumber our foes in any hypothetical conflict. As a result, our military expenditure per soldier is significantly higher than other nations. Canada spends around $191,000 per soldier per annum; the United States $236,000 per soldier, while a country like China spends approximately $21810 per soldier. We do this to ensure that the few can protect the many. We have to ensure the hardware that is deployed is better than what our likely foe deploys.

This means staying current. If we fight a war against a major foe, such as Russia or China, they will have current-generation fighters (5th generation fighters and 4++ generation fighters) that can match our fighters (the CF-18, a 4++ generation fighter). We don't actually expect to fight Russia or China, but if we do, we will expect pilots to die fighting a foe capable of putting a qualitative match in the air. What the Canadian Forces has been used for over the past twenty years, however, isn't fighting a qualitative equal - it's fighting a second-or-third world ruler such as Qaddafi or Milosevic.

In this case, we are outnumbered, but we win because our fighters are better than their fighters and air defences. If we keep our current 4++ generation fighters, the people we are most likely to fight in 10, 15 years will start getting their hands on surplus 4++ generation craft from countries like Russia, China, and Pakistan. When we lose our qualitative advantage, we put our military's ability to participate in international missions like the Libyan No-Fly Zone at risk; we lose a lot of our diplomatic clout, and most importantly, Canadians die.

There is also the fact that military hardware has to be replaced over time. I won't deny that our Cold War-oriented military isn't properly prepared for the combat tasks of today, and appropriations need to be altered to reflect this. But with the Liberals promising to scrap the F-35, the NDP talking about "re-evaluating" the process without mentioning alternatives, and the Bloq Quebecois not really being a federal party, I am reminded of the need for a Sea King replacement in the 1990s. This isn't a pleasing reminder. Canada's CH-124 Sea King helicopters were ordered in the 1950s and deployed in the 1960s and remain in current service with the Canadian Forces, despite being 48 years old and having exceeded their service life by almost double. Our Labrador helicopters also need replacement. Several of these two chopper types have crashed, and Canadian service personnel have died since the Jean Chretien government cut the early 1990s replacement program.

If you cut a program, you have to have a replacement, because people's lives are riding on those hardwares. Sure. You don't like the F-35 at $150 million a pop. There's options out there - the F/A-18E Super Hornet at $55 million an airframe, or the Eurofighter Typhoon at $125 million an airframe. What the Liberals and NDP aren't saying is that the CF-18 we currently fly is at the end of its lifespan. They've already started to crash and break up, and 9 Canadians have died in them. This number will increase if the replacement program is cancelled.

If you outright cancel the fighter replacement program, Canadians will die. Period.