Don’t fight on the buses, it’s not worth it. No matter how intense the skirmishes, François Legault won’t change his mind1. The reform of the voting system, in his eyes, is over.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
After betraying his word and reneging on his promise to replace our old system2, the chief caquiste has already paid the price. A very low price, as evidenced by his re-election.
Mr. Legault is now convinced: this system which gave him his landslide victory, it is excellent, even formidable…
Before going further, a little feedback on the results.
Mr. Legault has achieved a feat. After a first term marked by his difficult management of the pandemic, he increased his number of votes, from 37% to 41%.
Historically, 40% support is the threshold for obtaining a majority. With such a result, the CAQ could have won any election since 2003. This vote rate is all the more impressive since Mr. Legault had to defend his record and faced four teams with a chance of electing a deputy. While their vote was diluted, his was increased.
Beware of simplistic calculations. It is normal for a gap to remain between the percentage of votes and seats. This is the price to pay for regional representation. The question is whether this balance is broken.
Two examples show that yes.
First, the disproportionate number of CAQ MPs. There is a difference between a majority and a hyper-extra-giga majority of 90 deputies.
Whether the CAQ has 65 or 90 deputies does not change its power so much. A majority is still a majority. It is rather the opposition that is weakening. The CAQ government will be under weak surveillance. The parties will share speaking time and limited research budgets. By forcing a government to account, we prevent its slippages. Even CAQ supporters should recognize it: this does not bode well for democracy.
The other deficit is in the division of votes between the opposition parties.
Look at this table.
A vote for the Liberals counts seven times more than for the PQ and twice as much as for the Solidarity.
No wonder only the Liberals oppose adopting a mixed member proportional system3. Even when this system puts them at a disadvantage, as in 1998, they tell themselves that power will eventually come back to them thanks to the law of alternation.
The unequal weight of votes is not the only problem with our system. There is another: the patronage bonus. A party whose vote is geographically concentrated has an advantage. This encourages adopting its message to a particular segment of the electorate instead of speaking to Quebecers in general. The Liberals have understood this. With 75% of their deputies on the island of Montreal, more than ever, they are the party of allophones and anglophones.
Changing a voting system is tantamount to altering the rules of the game. This cannot be done by a single party. Otherwise, any government could rig the system to its advantage.
To avoid this problem, the law can be adopted with a large majority, which includes at least the party in power and the official opposition. Not possible at this time. With the liberals and the caquistes, the blockage is double.
We could circumvent it by asking citizens to decide by referendum. It would not be won in advance. This exercise has been conducted four times in other Canadian provinces and the No side has always won4.
Mr. Legault has less taste for it than ever. With 90 MPs, his caucus will be filled with people who owe their seats to the voting system. Changing it would mean losing their job. They will fight against. The CAQ leader will already struggle to manage the disappointed ambitions of his caucus. He will not add a problem for a file in which he no longer believes.
A different compromise is to be expected. I have the impression that the CAQists rather propose to reform the functioning of Parliament.
In 2020, they had filed a document to this effect. Among the proposals: lower the threshold of votes and deputies required to recognize a party, facilitate the appearances of deputy ministers and heads of state corporations and create a parliamentary budget officer to provide independent economic analysis. Other aspects would have harmed the opposition, which killed the project. But the Legault government will have no choice but to revive it.
Without replacing the reform of the electoral system, this would attenuate its disadvantages.
1 For those who did not understand the reference, Mr. Legault had said this to Radio-Canada on September 4: “There is no one fighting on the buses in Quebec to change the voting system. […] It does not interest the population, apart from a few intellectuals. »
3. Here is a summary of the voting method proposed in the defunct CAQ bill:
- There would still be 125 elected. On the other hand, the number of constituencies would drop to 80. They would thus be larger. The other 40 deputies would be elected from a list.
- Quebeckers would therefore vote twice.
- First vote: for a constituency MP elected under the current formula.
- Second vote: for a list deputy elected by a proportional vote in one of the 17 administrative regions.
- To elect a deputy from a list, a party should collect a minimum of 10% of votes at the national level.
4. In fact, the Yes side got 57% of the vote in 2005 in British Columbia. But since a majority of 60% was required, the No won.