Electing a MNC President through Universal Ballot:
A Feasibility Study
Institute On Governance
122 Clarence Street, Ottawa
The Institute On Governance (IOG) is a non-profit organization founded in 1990 to promote effective governance. From our perspective, governance comprises the traditions, institutions and processes that determine how power is exercised, how citizens are given a voice, and how decisions are made on issues of public concern.
Our current activities fall within these broad themes: building policy capacity; Aboriginal governance; accountability and performance measurement; youth and governance; citizen participation; governance and the voluntary sector; and technology and governance.
In pursuing these themes, we work in Canada and internationally. We provide advice on governance matters to organizations in the public, private and non-profit sectors. We bring people together in a variety of settings, events and professional development activities to promote learning and dialogue on governance issues. We undertake policy-relevant research, and publish results in the form of policy briefs and research papers.
You will find additional information on our themes and current activities on our web site, at
For further information, please contact:
Institute On Governance
122 Clarence Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 5P6 Canada
tel: (613) 562-0090
fax: (613) 562-0097
I) Introduction
Objective
The objective of this paper is to provide the Métis National Council (MNC) information on the feasibility of a Direct Leadership Selection Process for the election of the President of the MNC. Specifically, the paper will outline the necessary considerations required when designing a leadership selection structure and process. Furthermore, the paper will explore the issue of costs associated with different leadership selection processes, as well as provide a list of next steps required to effect these changes.
Organization
This paper begins by providing a brief description of the rationale behind the decision by the Métis National Council (MNC) to begin discussions regarding the possibility of electing a national president. Next the analysis will highlight the most significant structural (design) issues surrounding the move to elect a national leader, followed by an analysis of important procedural concerns. The paper will then assess the financial costs associated with the varying methods of selecting a leader and, lastly, provide suggested actions in order to achieve these various options.
Methodology
The Institute conducted a literature review on direct leadership selection systems, primarily within the Canadian context. Much of this literature touched upon the various experiences of both federal and provincial political parties in selecting a leader through a universal ballot. To supplement this material the Institute conducted a series of telephone interviews with various political party officials, Lawrence Gladue (Chief Electoral Officer) of the Métis Nation of Ontario, as well as experts and representatives of firms involved in administering elections.
II) The Motivation for Adopting a Direct Leadership Selection Process
The Métis Nation, as an Aboriginal people within Canada, asserts that it holds the inherent right of self-government. However, in its current form the Métis National Council (MNC) is a legal corporation created under the federal government’s Canada Corporations Act and is governed by corporate by-laws. This current situation is inconsistent with implementing Métis Nation self-government at a national level and often limits the MNC’s effectiveness in acting as a national government.
Based on resolutions from past Annual General Assemblies, the MNC is currently undertaking consultations on the development of a Métis Nation Constitution in order to move forward on implementing the Métis Nation’s inherent right of self-government at the national level.
A Métis Nation Constitution would move the MNC’s current corporate framework to that of a national Métis government structure. An important component of this new governmental structure would be the election of a national president. An election would not only democratize the selection process, while increasing the legitimacy of both the President and the MNC, but it would also foster a more inclusive and accountable political system for members of the Métis Nation.
Further, at the 2002 MNC Annual General Assembly, the leadership of the Metis Nation adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS the value of democracy is sacred to the Metis Nation; and
WHEREAS the leadership of the Metis Nation believes that every Metis citizen has the right to vote for their national president through a fair, transparent and independent nation wide ballot box election; and
WHEREAS a nationwide ballot box election for the Metis National Council’s President will strengthen the legitimacy and accountability of the Metis Nation’s national government;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the goal for the next election for the Metis National Council’s President be a nation wide, fair and transparent ballot box election; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the MNC President and MNC Board of Governors be mandated to develop a nation wide ballot box election process to be brought back to the next MNC Annual General Assembly to update and or ratification and approval.
Moved: Audrey Poitras, AB Seconded: Earl Belcourt, BC
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
This paper reviews possible options with respect to the development of a nation-wide ballot box election process for MNC President in the future.
III) Significant Structural Issues
A series of design issues arise when contemplating the adoption of a direct leadership selection process. First and foremost among these is the question of whether the President of the Métis National Council should be elected by a majority or a plurality of votes cast. This decision will subsequently drive the discussion regarding what appropriate ballot options are available.
A) Majority vs. Plurality Systems
Majority systems require that the elected leader receive 50 per cent + 1 of the total votes cast. Plurality systems, on the other hand, only stipulate that the winners receive the highest number of votes cast. COMMENTS: The advantages associated with plurality systems is that only one ballot needs to be held, and that the process is much easier to administer given the lack of complexity of the system. The drawback, however, is that the winning candidate may not have received the support of the majority of the voting members (particularly if there are many candidates running for office), and thus will not have the same degree of legitimacy afforded to a winning candidate that has received majority support. The advantage of a majority system is the legitimacy that is associated with a winning candidate receiving the support of over half of the electorate. The drawback is the need, in most instances (unless there are only two candidates running for office), for a more complex administrative mechanism that will accommodate the requirement for majority support (e.g., a preference vote or multiple ballots).
B) Ballot Options
The process of casting a ballot engenders a wide variety of possible methods whereby voters may elect a candidate. The following ballot options are limited to those methods that are specifically relevant to the MNC’s circumstances.
i)Single Ballot
This option requires the voter to fill in only one ballot. In turn, this ballot option may require the voter either choose one candidate (Single Vote Cast method), or list the candidates in order of preference (Preference Vote method).
a)Single Vote Cast – [This option is applicable only if a plurality of votes is required]
This ballot option requires the voter to choose one candidate. The candidate with the most votes wins. COMMENTS: Easy to administer. Possible lack of majority support detracts from legitimacy.
b)Preference Vote -- [This option is usually applicable only if a majority of votes is required] This ballot option requires the voter to list the names of the candidates in order of preference. Following the first vote count, the candidate/s receiving the least amount of votes cast is/are eliminated (the Preference Vote system provides the option of eliminating the candidate receiving the least votes, or all candidates except the two receiving the most votes). In the subsequent vote count, the second preferences of the voters who supported eliminated candidates are transferred to the candidates still in the running. This process continues until one candidate receives 50 per cent + 1 of the total votes cast. The Métis Nation of Ontario utilizes the preference vote only if there are more than four candidates nominated for any office. COMMENTS: Easy to administer. Required majority support provides greater legitimacy.
ii)Multiple Ballots -- [These options are applicable only if a majority of votes is required]
This ballot option requires the voter to fill in an initial ballot. If no candidate receives 50 per cent + 1 of the total votes cast, the candidate/s receiving the least votes is/are eliminated. Subsequent ballots with the names of the surviving candidates are provided to all voters for their selection. This process continues until one candidate receives 50 per cent + 1 of the total votes cast.
a) Two Ballot System -- This ballot option requires the voter to fill in an initial ballot. If no candidate receives 50 per cent + 1 of the total votes cast, all candidates except the two receiving the most votes are eliminated. The second ballot provides voters with the choice between the two remaining candidates. The candidate with most votes wins. COMMENTS: More difficult and costly to administer. Required majority support provides greater legitimacy.
b) Multiple Ballots System -- This ballot option requires the voter to fill in an initial ballot. If no candidate receives 50 per cent + 1 of the total votes cast, the candidate receiving the least votes is eliminated. Subsequent ballots with the names of the surviving candidates are provided to all voters for their selection. This process continues until one candidate receives 50 per cent + 1 of the total votes cast. COMMENTS: Most difficult and costly to administer. Required majority support provides greater legitimacy.
C) Available Voting Mechanisms
The following voting mechanisms are listed in order of frequency of employment by the organizations surveyed in this study.
i)Polling Stations-- This mechanism requires eligible voters to cast their ballot/s at a polling station where their name appears on the voters list (i.e., ideally at the polling station nearest their residence). Upon proof of identification voters may cast their ballot, which is then placed in a ballot box. COMMENTS: This voting mechanism provides the least concern over security issues.[1] Great travel distances to cast a ballot may deter voters from voting.
ii)Mail-in Ballots -- This mechanism requires eligible voters to cast their ballot/s by mail, following receipt of their ballot in the mail. The votes are then centrally counted. COMMENTS: A security issue associated with this voting mechanism regards the uncertainty that the eligible voter cast the mail-in ballot. There is the potential for an individual to intercept a letter containing a ballot, and subsequently cast a fraudulent vote or spoil a ballot.
iii)Tele-voting -- This mechanism requires eligible voters to dial a central telephone number and dial additional numbers identifying the candidate of their choice, as well as a personal Username (e.g., membership number) and Personal Identification Number (P.I.N.). A Username and P.I.N. would be provided to voting members by the Chief Electoral Officer of the MNC. COMMENTS: Requires voters to have access to a touch-tone phone. Concerns arise for those voters who cannot access a touch-tone phone. Should this system be used in conjunction with other non-digital mechanisms (i.e., mail-in ballots or polling stations), serious security issues may arise which can only be accommodated by organizations like election.com (see the New Democratic Party Experience under Section V – Costs). Further security issues to be considered involve the uncertainty that the caller casting the tele-vote may not be the individual on the register list. In this instance the caller may have intercepted the letter addressed to the eligible voter containing the membership and P.I.N. required to cast the tele-vote. Tele-voting is likely the best system for administering the multiple ballots option. It is of interest to note that many provincial parties used this mechanism throughout the early 1990s with varying degrees of success. Notable among the failures were the experiences of the Alberta and Nova Scotia Liberals in 1994 (the former for alleged abuse of the system, while the latter for technical difficulties, e.g., electronic congestion).[2] It is also significant to note that most parties that experimented with this mechanism have reverted to more conventional methods of leadership selection.
iv)Internet-voting -- This mechanism requires eligible voters to access the electoral website and identify the candidate of their choice. The eligible voter would be provided with a Username (e.g., membership number) and a P.I.N. COMMENTS: This mechanism requires voters to have access to a computer and the Internet. Concerns arise for those voters who cannot access a computer. Unlike tele-voting, this system is not susceptible to electronic congestion. Should this system be used in conjunction with other non-digital mechanisms (i.e., mail-in ballots or polling stations), serious security issues may arise which can only be accommodated by organizations like election.com.
It is also possible to devise a voting mechanism that encompasses two or more of the mechanisms listed above. This, however, would raise some serious concerns over security issues (e.g., some voters may utilize more than one mechanism to cast multiple ballots). There are systems in place that can oversee the safe and accurate integration of these mechanisms. They do, however, come with a substantial increase in expenditures (see the New Democratic Party Experience under Section V – Costs).
D) Weighting Vote Methods
The concept of the direct selection of a leader (via a universal ballot) translates into a process whereby the principle of ‘One Member One Vote’ is applied. This principle, however, can be applied in two distinct ways.
i)One Member One Equal Vote-- This system is particularly straight forward. Each vote cast has an equal value. COMMENTS: Clearly, this system is most consistent with the representative democratic principle of ‘One Member One Vote’, whereby every voter’s decision is equal, regardless of that voter’s status or what region of the country the voter is from. This method of weighing the vote also provides the greatest degree of legitimacy to the result, given its association with the principle of ‘One Member One Vote’. The large majority of political parties surveyed in this study use this method of vote weighing. The only concern associated with this method may be the bias it holds for regions that are densely populated by eligible voters. The effect may be that the newly elected leader may have more of a regional presence, as opposed to a national one, if the large majority of the support came from one region alone.
ii)Regionally-based voting -- A regionally-based voting system would see all eligible voting members fall within regionally-based constituencies. Each constituency would be assigned an equal amount of votes (say 100 points). A candidate receiving 45 per cent of the vote in a constituency would receive 45 of the possible 100 points of that constituency. All constituencies would then be pooled nationally, with the winning candidate receiving a majority or a plurality of total points (depending on what the electoral rules prescribe). Although this system still subscribes to the principle of ‘One Member One Vote’, each vote does not have an equal value because constituencies, as opposed to individual members, carry the same weight, and some constituencies may be more densely populated than others. COMMENTS: Although rarely implemented in universal ballot systems, some political parties use it to provide regional balance, and to prevent a candidate from winning by concentrating large numbers of votes in a single region (e.g., the federal Progressive Conservative party – see Appendix D, for a summary of their leadership selection model). The downside in utilizing this system is that each vote does not carry the same weight, and the system may therefore be classified as less democratic.
E) Relationship between the Design of the Electoral Process and Voter Turnout
In a study of Canadian provincial parties’ leadership selection systems,[3] William Cross analyzes the direct leadership election process of twelve provincial parties. He arrives at several conclusions regarding the relationship between the process used and voter turnout. The five political parties that used polling stations had the largest voter turnout (an average of 57 per cent); parties utilizing mail-in ballots were next with an average turnout of 41 per cent; tele-voting received the lowest level of voter turnout (an average of 39 per cent).