And They Call it Democracy

Have you ever had one of those experiences where when you first encounter something, it doesn't strike you as being too odd or unreasonable, but the more you think about it, the more absurd and irritating you think it is?

Well, that's me on the topic of referendums and supermajorities. At first when Gordon Campbell mandated that, in order for his government to go ahead with electoral reform, it would have to get the support of 60% of voters, I thought that this was high, but perhaps a reasonable precaution for a big change like changing the electoral system. After all, weren't supermajorities (more than 50%) required to pass other fundamental changes, like changing the constitution?

But what I eventually realized was that supermajorities are only ever required of votes of politicians, never for votes of the citizens, i.e. referendums. And when you think about it, this makes perfect sense. How can a government deny the wishes of a majority of the population, when the whole point of representative government is that the government should reflect the wishes of the people?

True, we have some protection for minority rights, but this is protection from discrimination and oppression, enshrined in the charter of rights and freedoms, not protection from having the electoral system changed, which is hardly a question of minority rights!

I invite readers to enlighten me, but I can't think of (or find using google) any question ever put to referendum anywhere which required a super-majority in order for politicians to consider it passed. Countries joining the European Union, adopting a new constitution, amending the existing constitution, changing their electoral systems, provinces joining the country, provinces leaving the country, conscription, daylight savings time, 50% majority required for every last one.

I've said all this before, I know, so why do I bring it up again now? Because P.E.I. Premier Pat Binns has just arbitrarily decided, one month before a referendum on a new voting system is to be held, that the threshold for it to pass should be 60%, not 50% as recommended by the Commission of P.E.I.'s electoral future, which Binns himself appointed.

This excellent blog post on the topic quotes Binns as saying,

"Government is not comfortable with 50 per cent plus one in a low turnout situation. If we were to have a very low turnout for some reason, and only 50 per cent plus one supported change, I would hardly think that that would be enough cause to change the system."

Binns is so concerned about the turnout that he is pinching pennies by cutting down the number of polling places! I don't know if they have a media in P.E.I. that is allowed to ask questions (the coverage I've seen from the CBC and the 'Guardian' is unclear on this point) but if they do muster up the gumption to ask a question, they might want to ask what happens if the vote is similar to what happened in B.C. That is, what happens if a clear majority (say 58%) of P.E.I. residents vote in favour of changing the system, but the government doesn't want to 'change the rules' by allowing a change to go through when the vote didn't meet their arbitrary 60% threshold.

In B.C. the government basically decided they would re-do the referendum four years later using the same threshold and hope that the result is 'clearer' this time, hardly an ideal solution - what happens if the vote is the same? Wait 4 more years and do it again?

Historically, politicians have changed the electoral system (and changed it back) without even consulting the electorate at all, something which is perfectly within their powers as granted by the constitution. But now, not only does it require a referendum (which I support), but it needs a supermajority to prevent - what exactly - the rights of the 40-50% minority from being trampled by the 50-60% majority? Or more likely, to prevent politicians having to deal with a system which gives more power to voters and less to them.

It seems like politicians are trying to take credit for 'doing something about electoral reform' while at the same time throwing up procedural barriers that make it near impossible for any reform to actually happen. Then they can say that they tried and 'the people have spoken'. But when politicians ask the people to speak and then conclude that the appropriate course is to act as if the losing side was in reality the victor, this is not democracy - and in some ways, it is worse than a politician just ignoring the whole question of electoral reform altogether.

I've never even been to P.E.I., but if I lived there I'd be embarrassed by the actions of my Premier on this issue. But, you might say, my own Premier in B.C. has done (pretty much¹) the same thing. To which I can only say, good point.

----
Update: ¹ I say pretty much, because, at least in the B.C. case, the 60% threshold was specified from the outset, rather than being tacked on last minute when the Premier got cold feet.