Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T18:40:04.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electoral System Reviews in New Zealand, Britain and Canada: A Critical Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Thomas Carl Lundberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article compares the use of people outside government to consider electoral reform in three countries using the single-member plurality electoral system. The composition of electoral reform bodies, ranging from commissions of experts (New Zealand) and ex-politicians (Britain) to assemblies of randomly selected citizens (British Columbia), appears to have influenced how well their recommendations were received by the public. Governments should be careful not to assume that they can retain control of the electoral reform process once they let it out of their hands, as the cases of New Zealand and British Columbia show, where majorities of the voters chose reform.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , 2007 , pp. 471 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Colomer, Josep M., ‘It's Parties That Choose Electoral Systems (or, Duverger's Laws Upside Down)’, Political Studies, 53: 1 (2005), pp. 1–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoted on p. 2.

2 Ibid., pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

3 Grumm, John G., ‘Theories of Electoral Systems’, Midwest Journal of Political Science, 2: 4 (1958), pp. 357–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stein Rokkan, Citizens, Elections, Parties, Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, 1970; Carles Boix, ‘Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies’, American Political Science Review, 93: 3 (1999), pp. 609–24; Kenneth Benoit, ‘Models of Electoral System Change’, Electoral Studies, 23 (2004), pp. 363–89.

4 Richard Katz, ‘Why Are There so Many (or so Few) Electoral Reforms?’, in Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell (eds), The Politics of Electoral Systems, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 57–76, quoted at p. 63.Google Scholar

5 Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System: Towards a Better Democracy, Wellington, New Zealand Government Printer, 1986, para. 2.8.Google Scholar

6 Ibid., para. 2.1.Google Scholar

7 Lijphart, Arend, ‘The Demise of the Last Westminster System? Comments on the Report of New Zealand's Royal Commission on the Electoral System’, Electoral Studies, 6: 2 (1987), pp. 97–103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoted on p. 100.

8 See, for example, Matthew Soberg Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg (eds), Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001; and Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

9 Harris, Paul, ‘Changing New Zealand's Electoral System: The 1992 Referendum’, Representation, 31: 115 (1992), pp. 53–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoted on p. 54.

10 David Denemark, ‘Choosing MMP in New Zealand: Explaining the 1993 Electoral Reform’, in Shugart and Wattenberg, Mixed-Member Electoral Systems, pp. 70–95.Google Scholar

11 Jack H. Nagel, ‘New Zealand: Reform by (Nearly) Immaculate Design’, in Josep M. Colomer (ed.), Handbook of Electoral System Choice, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, pp. 530–43, quoted on p. 542.Google Scholar

12 McLean, Iain, ‘The Jenkins Commission and the Implications of Electoral Reform for the UK’, Government and Opposition, 34: 2 (1999), pp. 143–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Andrew Rawnsley, Servants of the People: The Inside Story of New Labour, London, Hamish Hamilton, 2000, quoted on p. 203.Google Scholar

14 McLean, ‘The Jenkins Commission’, p. 153.Google Scholar

15 Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System, Chairman Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, London, The Stationery Office, 1998, Cm 4090-I, Chapter 9.Google Scholar

16 Shugart, Matthew Soberg, ‘The Jenkins Paradox: A Complex System, Yet Only a Timid Step Towards PR’, Representation, 36: 2 (Summer 1999), pp. 143–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoted on p. 143.

17 Nagel, ‘New Zealand’, p. 542.Google Scholar

18 John Morrison, Reforming Britain: New Labour, New Constitution?, London, Reuters, Pearson Education, 2001, p. 244.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., p. 254.Google Scholar

20 Ibid., p. 266.Google Scholar

21 British Columbia Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, ‘Making Every Vote Count: The Case for Electoral Reform in British Columbia’, Final Report, Victoria, 2004, pp. 10–13.Google Scholar

22 Milner, Henry, ‘First Past the Post? Progress Report on Electoral Reform Initiatives in Canadian Provinces’, Policy Matters, 5: 9 (September 2004 Google Scholar), quoted on p. 22.

23 Carty, R. Kenneth, ‘Canadians and Electoral Reform: An Impulse to Doing Democracy Differently’, Representation, 40: 3 (2004), pp. 173–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoted on p. 174.

24 Cairns, Alan C., ‘The Electoral System and the Party System in Canada, 1921–1965’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1 (1968), pp. 55–80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoted on p. 64.

25 William P. Irvine, Does Canada Need a New Electoral System?, Kingston, Queen's University Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, 1979.Google Scholar

26 Law Commission of Canada, Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada, Ottawa, Ministry of Public Works and Services, 2004, pp. 99–100.Google Scholar

27 Government of Quebec, ‘Draft Legislation Replacing the Election Act’, Background Paper, Quebec City, 2004, p. 6.Google Scholar

28 New Brunswick Commission on Legislative Democracy, Final Report and Recommendations, Fredericton, 2004, p. 46.Google Scholar

29 Prince Edward Island Electoral Reform Commission, ‘Prince Edward Island Electoral Reform Commission Report’, Charlottetown, 2003, p. 98.Google Scholar

30 Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, ‘One Ballot, Two Votes: A New Way to Vote in Ontario’, Toronto, 2007, p. 1.Google Scholar

31 BC Citizens' Assembly, Final Report, p. 1.Google Scholar

32 BC Citizens' Assembly, Making Every Vote Count: The Case for Electoral Reform in British Columbia, Technical Report, Victoria, 2004, p. 92.Google Scholar

33 BC Citizens' Assembly, Final Report, p. 6.Google Scholar

34 Ibid., p. 5.Google Scholar

35 Ibid.Google Scholar

36 Richard Warnica, ‘Hot Box for Campbell: Vote Reform’, TheTyee.ca, 9 June 2005, at http://www.thetyee.ca/News/2005/06/09/HotBox.Google Scholar

37 British Columbia, ‘B.C. to Hold Second Referendum on Electoral Reform’, news release, Office of the Premier, Victoria, 12 September 2005.Google Scholar

38 Cross, William, ‘The Rush to Electoral Reform in the Canadian Provinces: Why Now?’, Representation, 41: 2 (2005), pp. 75–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoted on p. 81.