Court File No.: CV-19-00628 883 0000

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

FAIR VOTING BC and

SPRINGTIDE COLLECTIVE FOR DEMOCRACY SOCIETY

Applicants

- and -

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

AFFIDAVIT OF LAWRENCE LEDUC

I, Lawrence LeDuc, of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, AFFIRM AS

FOLLOWS:

My qualifications and acknowledgment of my duty as an expert 1. I am Professor Emeritus of Political Science in the Department of Political Science at the

University of Toronto. I hold a PhD in Political Science from the University of Michigan.

1

2. I have taught Political Science at the University of Toronto since 1986. My areas of

specialization are Comparative Politics (including Electoral Systems), Political Behaviour

(including Political Participation and Voting Behaviour), and Research Methods.

3. In 2015, I received the Mildred A. Schwartz lifetime achievement award from the

Canadian politics section of the American Political Science Association.

4. From 2000 to 2003, I was asked by Elections: Canada to participate, together with

Professor Jon Pammett of Carleton University, in several studies of the decline in voter

turnout seen in the 2000 federal election. The first of these was an analysis of existing

survey data and literature. Our report on this work (Jon H. Pammett, Lawrence LeDuc,

Erin Thiessen and Antoine Bilodeau, Canadian Voting Turnout in Comparative

Perspective) was delivered to Elections Canada in 2001. A subsequent report

(Administrative Factors in Nonvoting in the 2000 Federal Election) was also provided to

Elections: Canada in connection with that work. Based on this research, Elections:

Canada commissioned a new survey of non-voters, which we designed, in April 2002.

The field work for that survey was conducted by Decima Research. Our analysis of these

data was delivered to Elections: Canada in several workshops and in our final report,

which they published (Jon H. Pammett, and Lawrence LeDuc, Explaining the Turnout

Decline in Canadian Federal Elections: A New Survey of Non-Voters (Ottawa, Elections

Canada, 2003)).

5. From 2004 to 2010, I was a member of two Expert Groups (on Political Participation and

Direct Democracy) convened by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral

Assistance (IDEA) in Stockholm. I was a co-author and co-editor of Direct Democracy:

The International IDEA Handbook (Stockholm, International IDEA, 2008).

2

6. In 2006-07, I served as a member of the Academic Advisory Committee for the Ontario

Citizens’ Assembly, which was created by the Ontario government to consider proposals

for electoral reform in Ontario.

7. In 2016, I testified as an expert witness at the hearings of the House of Commons Special

Committee on Electoral Reform.

8. In 2017, I taught a special topics course at the University of Toronto on electoral reform

in Canada. That course drew heavily on materials assembled by the Special Committee

(including its Report to the House of Commons) and on previous investigations into the

Canadian electoral system such as that of the Law Commission, whose report (Voting

Counts: Electoral Reform in Canada, published in 2004) was used as one of the texts in

that course.

9. I have written a number of books and articles dealing with elections, voting, and related

topics, both in Canada and other countries. Among my recent works that might be

considered relevant to this topic are:

● Absent Mandate: Strategies and Choices in Canadian Elections (University of Toronto Press, 2019) (with Harold D Clarke, Jane Jenson and Jon H. Pammett); ● Dynasties and Interludes: Past and Present in Canadian Electoral Politics, 2nd edition (Toronto, Dundurn Press, 2016) (with Jon H. Pammett and André Turcotte); ● Comparing Democracies 4: Elections and Voting in a Changing World (London, Sage, 2014) (with Richard G. Niemi and Pippa Norris) ● “Attitudes toward Democratic Norms and Practices: Canada in Comparative Perspective,” in Elisabeth Gidengil and Heather Bastedo, Canadian Democracy From the Ground Up (Vancouver, UBC Press, 2014) (with Jon H. Pammett) ● “Electoral Reform and Direct Democracy in Canada: When Citizens Become Involved,” West European Politics vol. 34 (2011), pp. 551-567; ● “Voter Turnout,” in Heather MacIvor, Election (Toronto, Emond Montgomery, 2010), pp. 251-67 (with Jon H. Pammett);

3

● “The Failure of Electoral Reform Proposals in Canada”, Political Science vol. 61 (2009), pp. 41-62; ● “Coalition Government: When It Happens, How It Works”, in Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin (eds.), Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis (University of Toronto Press, 2009), pp. 123-135; ● “Voter Turnout in 2006: More Than Just the Weather” in Jon H. Pammett & Christopher Dornan (eds.), The Canadian Federal Election of 2006 (Toronto, Dundurn, 2006), pp. 318-342 (with Jon H. Pammett); ● “Making Votes Count: How Well Did Our Electoral System Perform?”, Electoral Insight, vol. 7 (January 2005), pp. 37-41; ● “Something Old, Something New: Electoral Reform in Japan”, in Henry Milner (ed.), Steps Toward Making Every Vote Count: Canada and Its Provinces in Comparative Context (Toronto, Broadview, 2004), pp. 175-90;

● Political Choice in Canada, (Toronto, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1979). Abridged edition (Toronto, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1980) (with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett).

10. Attached to this affidavit and marked as Exhibit “A” is a true copy of my curriculum

vitae.

11. Attached to this affidavit and marked as Exhibit “B” is a true copy of my signed

acknowledgement of expert’s duty in this case.

12. On 9 July 2020, the applicants in this matter retained me to draft an affidavit. I was asked

to provide a fair, objective, and impartial opinion on the following four questions:

(i) Can you explain the impact of Canada’s current First-Past-the-Post voting system on the distribution of parliamentary seats? What would change under other voting system?

(ii) Can you explain the impact of Canada’s current First-Past-the-Post voting system on the representation of Canadian voters (including women, minorities, and ideologies)? What would change under other voting systems?

(iii) Can you explain the impact of Canada’s current First-Past-the-Post voting system on the participation of Canadian voters in the electoral process? What would change under other voting systems?

(iv) Can you provide an opinion on the previous use of Proportional

4

Representation systems in a Canadian context as well as broadly review previous efforts to transform voting systems in Canada? Attached to this affidavit and marked as Exhibit “C” is a true copy of the email sent by

counsel for the applicant, retaining me as an independent expert.

Summary of answers

(1) The most important function of an electoral system is to produce a parliament that

reflects accurately the choices of voters. Our first past the post electoral system (FPTP),

which we inherited from Britain, has repeatedly failed that test in a number of significant

ways over our history. As an alternative, a more proportional system would more

accurately reflect the choices made by Canadian voters in elections.

(2) FPTP produces parliaments that consistently under-represent women, many ethnic

minorities, and political views other than those of the majority. Research in the field

shows that more proportional electoral systems do a much better job of producing

legislative bodies with more women and better representation of the diversity of the

societies within which they operate.

(3) Voter turnout, which has been a concern in Canada in recent years, is also higher

under more proportional systems than under FPTP. This is because voters are more likely

to feel that their votes “count” under more proportional models. In List PR systems,

citizens also exhibit greater satisfaction with the operation of democratic political

institutions more generally.

(4) Since 1921, there have been a number of attempts to reform our electoral systems,

both at the federal and provincial levels. For many reasons, including the complexity of

the various reform proposals put forward as well as, principally, partisanship and

5

entrenched interests, none of these has been successful to date. Such efforts continue to

be active because election outcomes in Canada continue to expose the deficiencies of

FPTP and to highlight the need for greater proportionality in our legislative institutions.

1. Can you explain the impact of Canada’s current First-Past-the-Post voting system on the distribution of parliamentary seats? What would change under other voting system?

13. My colleague, Professor Peter Russell, who also testified before the House of Commons

Special Committee on Electoral Reform, stated in that testimony that the most important

function of an electoral system is to represent accurately the choices made by voters. I

agree. However, our First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) electoral system regularly fails that test,

both at the level of the individual voter and at the aggregate level.

14. While all Members of Parliament in Canada are expected to provide constituents with

certain basic services such as assistance with citizenship issues or help in applying for

government programs, FPTP at the individual level fails to provide any political

representation at the constituency level to all those who voted for any candidate other

than that of the winning party in their constituency. It thus generates millions of votes

that do not translate into legislative seats (which some refer to as “wasted votes”), a

characteristic of FPTP systems that has long been a central focus of the criticism of this

system in the academic literature (Milner, 1999). The policy and legislative preferences

of these voters are typically neither voiced by their MPs, who have in Canada

increasingly voted along partisan lines (Library of Parliament, 2018), nor reflected in

committee deliberations or in votes in Parliament. These voters therefore have

significantly reduced voices in government compared to voters who voted for an elected

6

MP. Under a proportional representation (PR) system, on the other hand, the vast

majority of voters see their votes counted toward the election of legislative

representatives.

15. Under Canada’s FPTP system, voters in particularly safe ridings may never in their lives

cast a ballot that counts towards the election of a representative of their choice.1 The

FPTP system is particularly unfair to these voters.

16. At the aggregate level, our FPTP system consistently over represents the party that

obtains the largest number of votes and under-represents other parties that have won

substantial numbers of votes. In comparison with other countries, therefore, Canada has

one of the world’s more disproportional electoral systems. Professor Michael Gallagher,

an expert on electoral systems in the Department of Political Science at Trinity College,

Dublin who also testified before the House of Commons Special Committee, compiled an

index of disproportionality for 87 democracies, which was referred to in the Special

Committee Report as the “Gallagher Index”. The Gallagher Index measures the distortion

between the distribution of parliamentary seats and the vote at the party level. A value of

zero on the Index indicates a system in which the distribution of seats accurately reflects

the partisan shares of voters. Higher values indicate greater levels of divergence – i.e.,

that certain parties received disproportionately too many or too few seats based on their

numbers of voters.

17. Canada scores over 11 on the Gallagher Index, indicating a very high level of

disproportionality in comparison with other democratic countries. This high level of

1 See, e.g., https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/any-conservative-logo-on-a-hay-bale-would-win- the-frustration-and-apathy-in-canadas-safest-ridings

7

disproportionality in our Parliament is a characteristic that Canada shares with the

relatively small number of countries that use the FPTP system of representation.

Countries such as Germany or New Zealand, which have more proportional or mixed

systems of representation, score around 3 on the index. Countries with list PR systems

such as Sweden achieve a value closer to 2 (Gallagher, 2014). In its report to the House

of Commons, the Special Committee recommended that Canada should hold a

referendum to propose a proportional electoral system with a value on this index no

higher than 5, which would effectively mean moving to a system other than FPTP or the

alternative vote (i.e., ranked ballots in single member ridings).

18. Writing in 1968, Alan Cairns, a Professor of Political Science at the University of British

Columbia, documented the many adverse effects on our politics generated by the FPTP

electoral system over the period from 1921 to 1965. Cairns’ findings, which have

repeatedly been confirmed by some of the extreme distortions which have occurred in

Canadian federal politics in the fifty years since his writing (Gibbins, 2005), showed that

many of the shortcomings of our national politics are direct or indirect effects of the

FPTP electoral system that we inherited from Britain. Among these are:

● false or exaggerated parliamentary majorities ● systematic under-representation of political minorities ● distorted regional and provincial representation

19. False or exaggerated parliamentary majorities: There have been 30 elections at the

federal level starting in 1921, the first federal election seriously contested by three or

more political parties. Thirteen of these produced minority governments. Fourteen of

these produced “false majority governments”, i.e., governments that held a majority of

8

seats in the House of Commons but that were not supported by a majority of the people.

This includes, in recent years, a number of elections in which a party won a majority

while receiving fewer than 40% of the votes cast. Only three times since 1921 did the

election produce a true majority government, a government led by a party that won 50%

of the popular vote. The FPTP system has also produced a so-called “wrong winner” in

our federal elections in 1957, 1979, and 2019, where the party with the most votes did not

gain the most seats and form government. (In each of these cases, the result was a

minority government.) For more than a century, our electoral system has typically failed

to deliver results that accurately reflect the will of the electorate as expressed on Election

Day.

20. Systematic over or under-representation of political minorities: As Cairns noted,

Canada’s FPTP electoral system favours minor parties with concentrated sectional

support, and discourages those with greater but diffuse national support. In recent history,

as shown in the tables below, this has systematically benefited supporters of the separatist

Bloc Québécois, while systematically penalizing supporters of the NDP and the Green

Party, which won no seats despite 6.8% of the vote (almost a million votes) in 2008 and

three seats (0.9% of the seats) despite 6.6% of the vote (nearly 1.2 million votes) in 2019.

9

BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS

Election 1993 1997 2000 2004 2006 2008 2011 2015 2019

% of the vote 13.5% 10.7% 10.7% 12.4% 10.5% 10.0% 6.0% 4.7% 7.6%

% of seats 18.3% 14.6% 12.6% 17.5% 16.6% 15.9% 1.3% 3.0% 9.5%

Actual 54 44 38 54 51 49 4 10 32 number of seats

Approximate 40 32 32 38 32 31 18 16 26 number of seats in a PR system

Gain/shortage +14 +12 +6 +16 +19 +18 -14 -6 +6 in seats due to FPTP

NDP

Election 1993 1997 2000 2004 2006 2008 2011 2015 2019

% of the vote 6.9% 11.1% 8.5% 15.7% 17.5% 18.2% 30.6% 19.7% 16.0%

% of seats 2.0% 7.0% 4.3% 6.2% 9.4% 12.0% 33.4% 13.0% 7.1%

10

Actual 9 21 13 19 29 37 103 44 24 number of seats

Approximate 20 33 26 48 54 56 94 67 54 number of seats in a PR system

Gain/shortag -11 -12 -13 -29 -25 -19 +9 -23 -30 e in seats due to FPTP

GREEN PARTY

Election 1993 1997 2000 2004 2006 2008 2011 2015 2019

% of the vote 6.8% 6.0% 3.5% 6.6%

% of seats 0 0.3% 0.3% 0.9%

Actual 0 1 1 3 number of seats

Approximate 21 18 12 22 number of seats in a PR system

Gain/shortage -21 -17 -11 -19 in seats due to FPTP

11

21. Distorted regional and provincial representation: The best-known modern case is the

1993 federal election, which produced a Parliament in which the Bloc Quebecois became

the Official Opposition because the concentration of its votes in Quebec gave it 54 of the

province’s 75 seats (72%). The Bloc fielded no candidates outside of Quebec. It received

49% of the vote in Quebec but only 14% of the total national vote. There were numerous

other extremes in that election. The Progressive Conservatives were reduced to two seats,

despite receiving 16% of the national vote – more than the Bloc. The Liberals won 98 of

the 99 seats in Ontario, while receiving only 53% of the vote in that province. Reform

won 22 of 26 seats in Alberta with 52% of the vote. And the Liberals won all but one seat

in the four Atlantic provinces combined. Cairns’ fear that FPTP would exacerbate

regional and linguistic tensions in Canada was fully dramatized by the 1993 outcome, and

its implications for the country could be seen in the second Quebec referendum which

took place two years later.

22. While the 1993 election was more dramatic, effects similar to those noted by Cairns are

also seen in many other elections that have taken place since 1968. Joe Clark formed a

minority government in 1979 with only two seats in Quebec, despite winning 13.5% of

the Quebec vote, and all 21 seats in Alberta despite winning 65.6% of the Alberta vote.

Under a proportional representation system, he would have secured 10 seats in Quebec

and 14 seats in Alberta, allowing for a more representative government and cabinet.

Pierre Trudeau formed a majority government the following year with no seats in British

Columbia, Alberta, or Saskatchewan. The National Energy Policy, and the animosity that

it caused in Alberta, were direct consequences of this distortion of regional

12

representation. It is often overlooked that the Trudeau Liberals in 1980 won more than

20% of the vote in each of the three Western provinces in which they were shut out. Had

they gained representation in those provinces in proportion to the vote, it would have led

to representation of these provinces in the Cabinet as well, and almost certainly to

different policy choices.

23. The divisions and tensions in our politics caused by FPTP are not only regional or

linguistic ones, although these have often been the most visible and perhaps the most

consequential. The two Harper minority governments (2006 and 2008) were formed

without any representation from Canada’s three largest cities, as well as wildly distorted

majorities in the Western provinces and relatively little representation from Quebec, in

which the Bloc continued to hold a large majority of the seats despite its declining share

of the vote. While these distortions were somewhat reduced when the CPC gained its

parliamentary majority in 2011, the under-representation of Quebec in government

continued. In the 2011 election that gave the Conservatives a majority of seats (achieved

with only 39% of the national vote), they lost half of their Quebec seats, dropping from

10 to 5.

24. Cairns concluded that the above effects have exacerbated the sectional, linguistic and

ethnic divisions that have frequently been sources of tension in our national politics.

Rather than providing “stability” in our elections, as proponents of FPTP often argue, the

electoral system has, in Cairns’ view, more often been a destabilizing element in

Canadian federal politics. While elections won with less that 40% of the vote can confer

only the most limited policy mandates for a new government, abrupt and substantial

shifts in policy occurred with the election of the Harper governments in 2006 and 2011,

13

as well as with the reversal of many of their policies by the Trudeau government when it

came to power in 2015, having won only 39.5% of the total popular vote in that election.

Such “policy lurches,” as they are sometimes called, are a common feature of FPTP

electoral systems which produce few constraints on a government holding a majority of

the parliamentary seats regardless of the breadth of its support across the electorate.

25. For all of the reasons documented by Cairns and other scholars, FPTP, in my opinion, has

never been, and is not now, an effective electoral model for a bilingual, multicultural,

regionally complex federation such as Canada.

26. While we cannot predict all of the longer term effects that a PR system would have on the

distribution of parliamentary seats in Canada (and these effects would necessarily depend

on the details of the particular PR system), experience elsewhere tells us that in a

Canadian PR system of low to moderate district magnitude, there might be one or two

more political parties represented in Parliament than there are at present, that these

additional parties would ensure that a wider variety of voters are represented (as

discussed under question 2 below), that the parties would be represented much more

proportionally in Parliament, that the largest party would be less dominant than it

frequently is under FPTP, that governments would likely be formed by coalitions of two

or more parties ─ generally one large party and one smaller party ─ and that government

would probably operate in a more consensual manner with no drop-off in economic

performance. For example, List PR’s wide usage around the world in different political

and social environments demonstrates that it provides stable, effective, accountable

government. We can have confidence that it would work well in Canada, more effectively

representing citizens and producing a healthier and more democratic political system.

14

27. Finally, the number of elections under FPTP and PR systems is about the same. In recent

years, however, FPTP in Canada has often produced minority rather than majority

governments, which are demonstrably less stable than formal coalitions in other countries

and lead to more frequent elections, because small shifts in votes can lead to large shifts

in seats and because minority governments lead to electioneering. Minority governments

in Canada often last only one or two years (e.g. 1957, 1962, 1963, 2004, 2006)

2. Can you explain the impact of Canada’s current First-Past-the-Post voting system on the representation of Canadian voters (including women, minorities, and ideologies)? What would change under other voting systems?

28. Under FPTP, many voters are unrepresented or under-represented. In addition to voters in

safe ridings, voters for smaller national parties, and voters in regions without cabinet

representation (as discussed above), FPTP under-represents voters whose ideological

beliefs don’t align with those of the majority, women, and minorities.

29. A change to a more proportional system would do a great deal to advance the

representation of a broader range of voters, resulting in the inclusion of political ideas and

interests beyond those of the electoral majority in our politics, and expanding the range of

public debate about issues to include more diverse perspectives (Orellana, 2010). Some

voters will form or support new political parties when they feel that their views have not

historically been reflected in the dominant parties. In many instances, these views have

broad public support but, because of the FPTP system, they are unable to gain effective

political representation. For example, as noted above, the Green party has fielded

candidates in both federal and provincial elections for some years, but has repeatedly

struggled to win representation.

15

30. In the 2019 federal election, the Greens won 6.5% of the total vote, and improved their

representation in the House of Commons from one to three seats. But under a

proportional system, where seats are awarded in direct proportion to the vote, the Greens

would have obtained 22 seats in a 338 seat Parliament. As a result, the voters who

supported the Green Party failed to see their votes contribute in significant numbers to the

election of representatives who could champion their perspectives and priorities. The

media also does not pay as much attention to the Green Party than if it had legislative

representation commensurate with their votes. The 2019 election took place during a

period when demonstrations on climate change were occurring in many cities. Yet the

ideas and concerns that these represented were not reflected in the election results. These

demonstrations were generally led by young voters, whose issues and concerns differ

from those of older voters, and who are typically under-represented as MPs in Parliament

under the existing FPTP system. This divergence has, in recent years, contributed to

declining turnout among younger age groups, an issue which I will discuss in more detail

in the next section.

31. Canada’s current FPTP system performs poorly in regard to the representation of women,

both provincially and federally, and in the other countries (primarily former British

colonies) that use it. No single factor explains the systemic under-representation of

women in Canada, but it is accepted as a fact among political scientists that the type of

electoral system has a significant impact. Canada’s FPTP system performs better in

regard to the representation of ethnic minorities. More generally, ethnic minorities do

somewhat worse under FPTP systems worldwide, but the results fluctuate over time and

are highly variable depending on the demographic makeup of constituencies.

16

32. List PR, the world’s most widely used electoral system (International IDEA, 2005), is by

far the best system for improving the representation of women and minorities (Krook,

2014; Sawer & Tremblay, 2020). The Scandinavian countries, all of which use List PR,

are consistently among the best performers with regard to the representation of women –

47% in Sweden, 46% in Finland, 41% in Norway, and 40% in Denmark (data obtained

from the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s Parline database). Many other List PR countries

throughout the world also perform well – 46% in South Africa, 46% in Costa Rica, 44%

in Spain. In every system, there are countries that perform poorly on the representation of

women and minorities, of course – but less so under List PR. Because of its long-time

usage in many different political and social environments, the properties of List PR

systems are well known and well documented in academic research.

33. Proportional mixed models such as those used in Germany and New Zealand also

perform better with regard to the representation of women in parliaments than FPTP,

achieving a level of about 31% and 41% in the most recent elections, compared with 29%

in Canada (which was Canada’s highest ever proportion of women), and they do better on

the “list” portion than on the “constituency” portion of the ballot. In New Zealand, the

proportion of women in Parliament rose from 21% in the last election under FPTP (1993)

to 29% in the first held under MMP (1996), suggesting an immediate effect from the

reform. New Zealand also held a referendum designed to revisit the issue of the change to

MMP in 2011, after the new system has been in place for six consecutive elections. In

that referendum, 58% of voters supported retention of the new system.

34. In general, political parties under proportional systems will act strategically to assure that

their candidate lists reflect both gender balance and the racial and ethnic diversity of the

17

constituencies in which they field candidates.

35. We can therefore have considerable confidence that the introduction of a more

proportional electoral system in Canada would lead to a more ethnically diverse (i.e.,

containing a broader selection of ethnic minorities) and gender-balanced Parliament,

more accurately reflecting our social diversity. It would also broaden the representation

of political ideas and interests beyond those of the majority, and give voice to the large

numbers of individual voters who, despite their vote, fail to gain proper representation in

our legislative bodies, federal and provincial.

3. Can you explain the impact of Canada’s current First-Past-the-Post voting system on the participation of Canadian voters in the electoral process? What would change under other voting systems?

36. It is clear that the electoral system plays a role in generating dissatisfaction with the

performance of our political institutions and, in turn, in diminishing the participation and

engagement of our citizens (Anderson & Guillory, 1997). On the whole, satisfaction with

democracy is lower in FPTP “winner-takes-all” systems than in PR democracies (Foa et

al, 2020). Those who vote for losing parties in PR systems also have a higher satisfaction

level than in FPTP systems. Recent experimental research demonstrates clearly that

voters do care about the degree to which their votes are reflected in the distribution of

parliamentary seats, and that this affects their degree of satisfaction with electoral

institutions and with the perceived fairness of the political system more generally (Plescia

et al, 2020).

37. In a 2012 survey conducted by Samara, only about half (54%) of Canadians surveyed

indicated that they were “very satisfied” or “fairly satisfied” with “the way that

18

democracy works in this country” (Gidengil and Bastedo, 2014). In the Samara survey,

when asked to cite reasons for their dissatisfaction, the electoral system was among the

most frequently-mentioned reasons – second only to the concentration of power in the

executive, which is itself a function of our FPTP electoral system (LeDuc & Pammett,

2014). The level of dissatisfaction of Canadians with their political systems, federal and

provincial, has risen in recent years and compares unfavourably with similar measures in

a number of other countries. Because this question has been asked in many other surveys,

it is possible to compare Canadians’ attitudes with those found in other countries (Foa et

al, 2020). We are a few percentage points better than the satisfaction levels found in the

United States, but well below those in Denmark (92%,) Sweden (80%), or The

Netherlands (78%) – all PR countries (LeDuc and Pammett, 2014). Should Canada

change to a PR system, therefore, it is likely that the level of satisfaction with the political

system would increase.

38. Dissatisfaction with our electoral institutions is connected with relatively low voter

turnout in Canada, which has been in a more or less continuous decline for over two

decades, reaching an historic low (59%) in the 2008 federal election. Although turnout

improved to 68% in 2015, it receded again slightly in the 2019 election (66%). Research

has consistently found that one of the reasons for declining turnout in Canada is the

feeling among citizens that their votes too often do not really count under the present

system, or that the choices presented to them in many constituencies are inadequate

(LeDuc and Pammett, 2010). In industrial democracies throughout the world, more

proportional systems generally produce higher turnout in elections, largely for these

reasons (Powell, 2000; Smith, 2018). To mention only a few examples of turnout in

19

recent elections in countries with more proportional electoral systems: in the 2018

election in Sweden, voter turnout was 87%; in Denmark (2019), 85%; in The Netherlands

(2017), 82%; in New Zealand (2017), 80%; in Germany (2017), 78%; and in Spain

(2019), 72%, (International IDEA). Accordingly, it is very likely that changing Canada’s

voting system from FPTP to PR would increase turnout by a few percentage points over

time, since voters who feel that their votes don’t count under FPTP would vote in greater

numbers under PR.

39. FPTP also produces many “safe” seats, which in turn leads to increased voter

dissatisfaction and higher rates of withdrawal from voting. Canadian elections, both

federal and provincial, invariably raise discussions of “strategic voting” over the course

of a campaign. While strategic voting can also occur under other electoral regimes, it has

more negative consequences under FPTP. Under PR, for example, voters might choose to

vote for a potential coalition partner rather than for their first choice party or candidate.

Under FPTP however, the psychology is more negative, and tends to lead to

disengagement from the electorate. Canadian voters hate the idea of strategic voting –

effectively being told to vote for a candidate that they don’t want in order to prevent a

candidate that they like even less from being elected. Rather than encouraging

participation, this configuration more often prompts withdrawal. It is one of the reasons

why, particularly in “safe” constituencies, participation in Canadian elections is lower

than it should be.

40. In “swing” ridings, on the other hand, turnout tends to be higher, because voters feel that

their votes matter and they have the chance to impact the election of a representative. The

concepts of “safe” and “swing” ridings have no meaning under PR.

20

41. The two decades of decline in participation in elections in Canada prompted a number of

investigations by Elections: Canada and other government bodies into its causes. I

participated in a study commissioned by Elections: Canada in 2000 which found that the

sharp decline in turnout in the elections of that year (62%) was largely caused by the

extremely low participation of young voters (Pammett & LeDuc, 2000; Rubenson et al,

2004). The turnout decline, together with the findings cited above regarding

dissatisfaction with political institutions, led to considerable debate regarding what came

to be called in Canada the “democratic deficit.”

42. Expressing concern about the democratic deficit, the Martin government in 2003 initiated

a study by the Law Commission. In its 2004 report advocating electoral reform, the

Commission wrote that “…Canada has been in the grip of a democratic malaise

evidenced by decreasing levels of political trust, declining voter turnout, increasing

cynicism toward politicians and traditional forms of political participation, and growing

disengagement of young people from politics.” The Commission went on to state that

“electoral system reform is a good starting point for energizing and strengthening

Canadian democracy.” In its campaign commitment that “2015 would be the last election

held under FPTP”, the Trudeau Liberals echoed this sentiment. But, as has often been the

case in the past, the government declined to implement the recommendations of the

Special Committee that it created, and electoral reform is as elusive today as it has proven

to be in the past.

21

4. Can you provide an opinion on the previous use of Proportional Representation systems in a Canadian context as well as broadly review previous efforts to transform voting systems in Canada?

43. As noted in the Report of the Special Committee of the House of Commons

(Strengthening Democracy in Canada, 2016), Canada has not always exclusively used

FPTP in single member districts in the past. We have had multimember ridings at both

the federal and provincial levels, and Alberta and Manitoba used STV in provincial

elections in big cities between 1920 and 1955.

44. We inherited the FPTP system from Britain, and there was virtually no debate then about

its suitability in Canada. However, in 1921, the first federal election widely contested by

three political parties, the Conservatives under Arthur Meighen came third and the

Progressives came second to Mackenzie King’s Liberals. An active debate at the federal

level about FPTP began that year, and the issue has been debated more or less continually

since that time (Pilon, 2007). In its First Report, presented to the House of Commons on

30 May 1921, the Special Committee on Proportional Representation and the Subject of

the Single Transferable or Preferential Vote found that the first-past-the-post electoral

system only worked as intended when two candidates ran against each other

(Strengthening Democracy in Canada, 2016). Nevertheless, particularly given the natural

conflict of interest of governments with respect to reforming the very electoral system

that elected them, partisanship and entrenched interests have combined to keep FPTP in

place since that time (LeDuc 2009).

45. Discussion of the issue waxed and waned throughout the 1920s and 1930s, responding

intermittently to the shifting political winds of that time. But because the electoral system

sits at the root of partisan self interest, proposals for change were always linked in one

22

way or another to partisan politics. Mackenzie King at first expressed interest in electoral

reform, responding in part to pressure from the Progressives. He had originally hoped to

keep the Progressives on side when he needed their support, particularly in the period

after 1925 when his minority government might easily have been defeated. But, upon

winning a majority of seats in the 1926 election, King abandoned the issue.

46. Active debate resumed in Canada during the 1960s following a succession of minority

governments. It surfaced again during the constitutional debates of the 1970s, and

continued in the 1980s and 1990s with the failure of the Meech Lake Accord and the

constitutional initiatives put forward in the Charlottetown Accord.

47. The reconfiguration of the party system in 1993 and the wild distortions in regional

representation which continued through the 1990s focused even greater attention on the

weaknesses of the electoral system, as did the turnout decline and concerns with the

democratic deficit” which dominated much of the debate regarding political reform

during the first two decades of this century.

48. The bodies mandated to make recommendations such as the Spicer Commission (1990),

the Law Commission (2004), or more recently the Special Committee of the House of

Commons (2016) have typically advocated reforms, but governments have proven

resistant to these. Were Canada a new democracy able to choose an appropriate electoral

model today without reference to the past, it would almost certainly not adopt FPTP.

However, it is difficult to persuade the public to embrace change, particularly to reform

an institution that has been in place for 140 years. But inertia alone does not explain the

failure in Canada of the electoral reform movement. Other impediments to change can be

readily identified, and will be discussed below (LeDuc et al, 2008; LeDuc, 2009).

23

49. The experience at the provincial level is similar (Milner, 2004; Fair Vote Canada, 2005).

While context differs between provinces, many of the issues such as the representation of

women and minorities, low voter turnout, and the creation of artificial majorities have

been the same as those that have arisen in federal elections. While efforts toward reform

advanced further in at least five provinces, none has yet come to pass. British Columbia

came the closest with a positive recommendation by a Citizens’ Assembly to replace

FPTP with a STV system, followed by a referendum vote in 2005 in which 57.7% voted

in favour of moving to the STV system. Ontario’s Citizens’ Assembly likewise

recommended a change in the electoral system from FPTP to MMP, but its proposal was

defeated in a referendum in 2007. Prince Edward Island (2005, 2016, 2019), and New

Brunswick have also debated reform proposals, but none of these have been adopted.

There has also been an active debate over the years on electoral reform in Quebec, and it

is once again being considered in that province because of a campaign commitment by

the new CAQ government.

50. All of the provincial proposals to date have been for STV or for a mixed or hybrid system

such as MMP, any of which would have introduced some significant degree of

proportionality. There are multiple reasons for their failure, but among these is the

complexity of the various reform proposals put forward as well as partisanship and

entrenched interests. Governments typically see proposals for institutional change either

as threats to their position or as opportunities to advance a partisan agenda. In the former

case, proposals that are put forward by organizations or groups outside of government are

easily ignored or sidelined. The Martin Government, for example, did not act on the

recommendations put forward by the Law Commission in spite of its commitment to

24

confronting the ‘democratic deficit’. However, when governments do decide to act on a

reform proposal, they often do so from a perspective of gaining a political advantage over

their opponents. Opposition parties often express support for reforms while they are in

opposition, then lose interest in the same ideas when they are in government.

Furthermore, the political success of parties in power tends to be closely tied to the

electoral system that enabled it (LeDuc, 2009).

51. To the extent that referendums are used, the NO side frequently possesses a considerable

advantage, and negative campaign tactics are often effective, particularly in the media.

YES campaigners on the other hand need to ‘educate’ as well as persuade an often

skeptical and poorly informed public to support change (LeDuc, 2011).

52. In British Columbia, although the referendum generated majority support for a change

from FPTP to an STV system, it failed because the Government had specified a required

supermajority of 60% – a level just high enough to assure that the proposed change could

be stopped, despite the recommendation of the Citizens’ Assembly and a solid majority

of the electorate.

53. Prince Edward Island has made several serious attempts at electoral reform. The first,

culminated in a referendum held in 2005 in which a proposal to bring in MMP, which had

been recommended by a government appointed commission, was rejected by a margin of

2-1. Because the turnout in that referendum was very low however, the issue remained on

the agenda in PEI. In 2016, a second referendum was held in which voters were allowed

to express a choice between five electoral systems on a ranked ballot. MMP was declared

the winner of that vote on the fourth iteration of preferences in a runoff against FPTP (in

a margin of 52.42% to 42.84%). However, again claiming that turnout was too low

25

(37%), the government declined to act on the referendum outcome, which was non

binding. A third attempt was made in 2019, in which a proposal to adopt MMP (the

winner of the 2016 preference vote) was rejected by a narrow margin (52-48). While this

has likely put an end in the short term to new initiatives in the province, it is clear that the

debate is not over.

54. In Ontario, the movement towards reform also failed, in large part because the

government that initiated the effort effectively withdrew its support once a specific

proposal had been put forward by the Citizens’ Assembly that it created (LeDuc et al,

2008). The Assembly’s recommendations were also not widely discussed nor well

understood by the public at large (and this lack of understanding was a main factor for

those who voted against it (LeDuc et al., 2008; LeDuc, 2009). The Government also

required 60% support for the referendum to succeed which, like in BC, indicates the

extent to which governments will go to prevent reforms that they really don’t want.

55. Active opposition to reform from the business community has also been a factor in the

failure of the provincial reform proposals, as it was also in the second New Zealand

referendum in 1993 (Vowles, 1995). Business groups historically have viewed the move

towards electoral reform through a more ideological lens. In Canada, for example, they

have tended to believe that proposed reforms would empower the NDP, most likely as a

logical coalition partner in a government led by the Liberals. In New Zealand, the

speculation was that the change to MMP would make Labour governments more

probable, particularly by forming coalitions with third parties such as the Greens.

56. However, the need to correct for the glaring deficiencies of FPTP and to introduce

proportionality into the electoral system, has been at the heart of the debate in the

26

23rd December

Nicolas M. Rouleau (LSO #54515D) Nicolas M. Rouleau Professional Corp 41 Burnside Dr. Toronto ON M6G 2M9

EXHIBIT "A"

This is Exhibit "A" to the affidavit of Lawrence LeDuc, affirmed by videoconference on the 23rd day of December, 2020.

______Nicolas M. Rouleau (54515D)

A Commissioner, etc.

LAWRENCE LEDUC Professor Emeritus of Political Science University of Toronto 100 St. George St. Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G3, CANADA

Telephone: (416) 946-0957 FAX: (416) 978-5566 EMAIL: [email protected] WEB: http//www.chass.utoronto.ca/~leduc/

E D U C A T I O N

B.A. 1962: Assumption University

Economics major; minors in Philosophy and Political Science.

M.A. 1964: Wayne State University

Major areas of concentration: Comparative politics, U. S. government and politics. Cognate field: Economics. Thesis: The 1963 Federal Election: a Study in Canadian Politics. (Supervisor: Carl O. Smith)

Ph.D. 1970: University of Michigan

Major areas of concentration: Comparative politics, political behaviour, research methods, U. S. government and politics. Cognate field: Public Finance. Dissertation: The Leadership Selection Process in Canadian Political Parties. (Committee: Donald E. Stokes, Samuel H. Barnes, Lionel H. Laing, John Kingdon, Donald Katz).

I.S.S.C. Summer Program in Comparative Social Research, University of Strathclyde, 1973 E M P L O Y M E N T

Research Associate, Wayne State University, 1963-64

Teaching Fellow, University of Michigan, 1965-67

Instructor, Henry Ford Community College, 1965-67

Lecturer, University of Windsor, 1967-69

Assistant Professor, University of Windsor, 1969-72

Associate Professor, University of Windsor, 1972-76

Visiting Professor, Nipissing College, 1974

Professor, University of Windsor, 1976-86

Visiting Fellow, University of Essex, 1980-81

Associate Dean of Graduate Studies, University of Windsor, 1982-85

Professor, University of Toronto, 1986-2012; Professor Emeritus, 2012-

Visiting Professor, Florida State University, 1988-89

Visiting Professor, University of Amsterdam, 1995-96

Visiting Professor, Kwansei Gakuin University (Japan), 2002-03

Visiting Fellow, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 2003

Visiting Professor, Central European University (Hungary), 2003-04

Visiting Professor, John F. Kennedy Institute for North American Studies, Freie Universität Berlin, 2010-11

Visiting Fellow, Electoral Integrity Project, University of Sydney, 2013 P R O F E S S I O N A L A C T I V I T I E S

Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, official representative, 1967-88

Member: American Political Science Association Canadian Political Science Association International Political Science Association British Politics Group (APSA) Elections, Parties and Public Opinion Group (PSA) Electoral Research and Representation Group (IPSA) Canadian Politics Group (APSA)

Chair, Faculty Salary Negotiating Committee, University of Windsor, 1972-73

University Senate, 1974-75, 1976-77

University Budget Review Committee, 1974-76, 1978-80

Presidential Search Committee, University of Windsor, 1977-78

Secretary, Research Board, University of Windsor, 1978-80

Board of Directors, Canadian Political Science Association, 1979-80

Council, Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1980-83

Editorial Board, Journal of Politics, 1982-87

M.A, Supervisor, Dept. of Political Science, University of Toronto, 1987-90

Chief Electoral Officer's Advisory Committee on the Referendum, 1992

SSHRC Doctoral Fellowships Adjudication Committee, 1993-95

Academic Board, University of Toronto, 1992-95

Executive committee, British Politics Group, 1995-97

Director, European Studies Program, Faculty of Arts & Science, University of Toronto, 1997-98

Director of Graduate Studies and Associate Chair, Dept. of Political Science, University of Toronto, 1993-97, 2000-01 Editorial Board, Electoral Studies, 1988-2016

Editorial Board, European Journal of Political Research, 2002-2008

Member, Expert Groups on Political Participation and Direct Democracy, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), Stockholm, Sweden, 2003-2010

Editorial Board, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 2006-

R E S E A R C H A C T I V I T I E S

Liberal Leadership Convention Study, 1968

Ontario Legislative Study (with W. L. White), 1971

Member, International Business Studies Research Unit, University of Windsor, 1973-82

National Business and Public Policy Surveys, 1974-85 (with J. Alex Murray and Elliott Research Corp.)

Co-investigator, 1974 Canadian National Election Study

Co-investigator, 1979-80 National Election Panel Studies and Quebec Referendum Study

Faculty of Engineering Energy/Life Style Survey, 1979

Windsor/Essex County Databank Survey, 1985

Associate, Laurier Institute for Business and Economic Studies, 1983-90

Co-investigator, 1987 British Campaign Study

Co-investigator, 1988 Carleton Panel Study

Co-investigator, 1992 Carleton Referendum Study

Principal investigator, Comparative Referendums Project, 1998-2002 Co-investigator, Canadian Nonvoters Study (Elections: Canada), 2002

Co-investigator, Political Participation Project, 2004-2008

Co-investigator, Multilevel Voting Project, 2009-2012

T H E S I S S U P E R V I S I O N S (primary only)

Marianne Stewart. M.A. (1980). The Effects of Party Leaders on Electoral Choice in Canada.

Mary Ellen Bernard, M.A. (1983). The Yvette Movement and Voting Behaviour in the Quebec Referendum.

Anthony G. Debly, M.A. (1985). The Stability of Non-Voting in Canadian Elections.

Judith McKenzie, Ph.D. (1994). Parliamentary Careers in Canada: 1958-93.

Hubert Tworzecki, Ph.D. (1994). Cleavage Structures in Poland: The Polish Party System and the Transition to Democracy.

Livianna Tossutti, Ph.D. (1998). Globalization and Communitarian Party Identities in Belgium, Canada and Italy.

André Turcotte, Ph.D. (1998). Economic Voting in Canadian Elections.

M E D I A

Editorial commentator, Radio Station CBE (Windsor), 1975-85

Occasional radio and television political commentary, CBC (Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa), CTV, Global, Radio Canada International, BBC World Service, RTL4 (Netherlands)

Misc. newspaper articles, The Windsor Star, The Globe & Mail, The Observer

BBC Newsnight program, news special on Canada, London, 1981

CBC programs Sunday Morning (1979, 1980, 1984); The House (1984); Leader debates (1984); Business World (1992, 1993, 1996), Pamela Wallin Live (1997) CBET-TV (Windsor), 1984 federal election coverage, 1985 Ontario provincial election coverage

CBC Newsworld, Referendum news specials, 1992

CBC Newsworld, Federal election specials, 1993, 1997, 2000

CTV NewsOne, Impeachment hearings and trial, 1998-99

R E S E A R C H G R A N T S (excluding travel and conference grants)

Canada Council research grant, 1972-73, $185,000 (with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett)

Canada Council research grant (renewal), 1975-76, $21,000 (with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett)

Canada Council research grant (supplement), 1975-76, $3,500 (with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett)

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council research grant, 1978, $247,510 (with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett)

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council research grant (renewal), 1979, $26,050 (with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett)

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council research grant, 1980, $99,300 (with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett)

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council research grant, 1980, $9,560 (with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett)

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Leave Fellowship, 1980-81, $17,800

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council research grant, 1982, $47,500 (with Harold D. Clarke, Jon H. Pammett, and Kai Hildebrandt)

University of Toronto/SSHRC research grant, 1988, $2000

University of Toronto/SSHRC research grant, 1989, $2350

University of Toronto/SSHRC research grant, 1992, $3750

University of Toronto/SSHRC research grant, 1993, $1450

National Science Foundation (U.S.) research/conference grant, 1994-95, $34,000 (with Richard G. Niemi and Pippa Norris)

Sage Publications, pre-publication grant, 1995, $2000

University of Toronto/SSHRC research grant, 1996, $1350

University of Toronto/SSHRC research grant, 1997, $2500

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council research grant, 1998, $44,370

Elections Canada research contract, 2001, $25,000 (with Jon H. Pammett)

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council research grant, 2004, $72,500 (with Jon H. Pammett)

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council research grant, 2008, $52,530 (with Jon H. Pammett)

P U B L I C A T I O N S & S E L E C T E D P A P E R S (chronologically, excluding book reviews)

"Party Decision Making: Some Empirical Observations on the Leadership Selection Process", Canadian Journal of Political Science, IV (1971), pp. 97-118.

(with W. L. White) "The Role of Opposition in a One Party Dominant System: the Case of Ontario", Canadian Journal of Political Science, VII (1974), pp. 86-100.

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) "A National Sample Design", Canadian Journal of Political Science, VII (1974), pp. 701-8.

(with J. Alex Murray and Mary C. Gerace) A Cross Sectional Analysis of Canadian Public Attitudes Toward U.S. Equity Investment in Canada, Ontario Economic Council Working Paper no. 2-75, 1975. "The Majority Government Issue and Electoral Behaviour in Canada", paper presented to the IPSA/ISA Committee on Political Sociology Round Table on Elections in Complex Societies, Queen's University, 1975.

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) "The 1974 Federal Election: a Preliminary Report", Carleton University Occasional Papers Series, no. 4 (originally presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Edmonton, 1975.)

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) "Patterns of Partisanship in Canada: Split Identification and Cross Time Variation", paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, 1975.

(with J. Alex Murray) "Public Opinion and the Economy", series of three articles on Economic Policy, Corporate Profits, and Foreign Investment, Toronto Globe and Mail, October 10, 11, 14, 1975.

"The Measurement of Public Opinion", in Howard Penniman (ed.), Canada at the Polls, Washington, American Enterprise Institute, 1975, pp. 209-41.

"Measuring the Sense of Political Efficacy in Canada: Problems of Measurement Equivalence", Comparative Political Studies, VIII (1976), pp. 490-500.

"Semantic Differential Measures of British Party Images", British Journal of Political Science, VI (1976), pp.115-28.

(with J. Alex Murray) "Public Opinion and the Economy", series of four articles on Economic Policy, Corporate Profits, Foreign Investment, and Consumer Outlook, Toronto Globe and Mail, May 25, 26, 27, June 1, 1976. The article on corporate profits was also published as part of an instructional package by the Canadian Institute for Economic Education, Toronto, February 1979.

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) "Partisanship, Party Images, and the Canadian Federal System", paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Québec, 1976.

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) "Partisanship, Political Interest, and Electoral Campaigns in Canada", paper presented to the 10th World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Edinburgh, 1976.

(with J. Alex Murray) "Public Opinion Toward Foreign Policy Issues: Some Recent Trends", International Perspectives, May-June, 1976, pp. 38-40.

(with J. Alex Murray) "Public Opinion and U.S. Influence in Canada", paper presented to the Bicentennial conference 'Canada and the United States: Toward a New Partnership', Boston, 1976.

(with Allan Kornberg and Harold D. Clarke) "Correlates of Regime and Partisan Object Support in Canada", paper presented to the Consortium for Comparative Legislative Studies, annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 1976.

"Partisan Stability, Political Interest, and the Salience of Policy Alternatives in Elections", presentation to the British Politics Group Round Table on Comparative Policy Studies, annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 1976.

(with Terence A. Keenleyside and J. Alex Murray) "Public Opinion and Canadian-American Economic Relations", Behind the Headlines, XXXV (1976), Ser. no. 4.

(with J. Alex Murray) "Public Opinion, Nationalism, and the New Directions in Canadian Foreign Policy", Public Opinion Quarterly, XL (1976-77), pp. 488-96.

“Political Behaviour and the Issue of Majority Government in Two Federal Elections", Canadian Journal of Political Science, X (1977), pp. 311-40.

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) "The Perception and Impact of Issues in the 1974 Federal Election", Canadian Journal of Political Science, X (1977), pp. 93-126.

(with Robert Krause) "Voting Behaviour and Electoral Strategies in the 1976 Progressive-Conservative Leadership Convention", paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Fredericton, 1977.

"Canadian Attitudes Toward Quebec Independence", Public Opinion Quarterly, XLI (1977-78), pp. 347-55.

(with Allan Kornberg and Harold D. Clarke) "Some Correlates of Regime Support in Canada", British Journal of Political Science, VIII (1978), pp. 199-215.

(with Mike Burke and Harold D. Clarke) "Federal and Provincial Political Participation in Canada: Some Methodological and Substantive Considerations", Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, XII (1978), pp. 61-75. (with J. Alex Murray) "Canadian Nationalism: Pause or Decline?", paper presented to the World Association for Public Opinion Research, Oslo, 1977.

(with J. Alex Murray, George L. Shields, and Henny Wolfe) "Public Attitudes and the Canadian Economy: a Survey of Business and Economic Outlook", International Business Studies Occasional Paper, University of Windsor, 1977.

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) Political Choice in Canada, (Toronto, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1979).

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) Political Choice in Canada, abridged edition (Toronto, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1980).

"Studies of Electoral Change in the United States: Some Comparative Implications", paper presented to the biennial meeting of the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor, 1977.

(with J. Alex Murray) "Changing Attitudes Toward Foreign Investment in Canada", paper presented to the Seminar on Host Country Attitudes Toward Multinational Firms, New York, 1978. Published in John Fayerweather (ed.), Host National Attitudes Toward Multinational Corporations (NY, Darwin, 1980).

(with J. Alex Murray, George L. Shields, and Henny Wolfe) "Public Attitudes and the Canadian Economy: a Survey of Business and Economic Outlook", International Business Studies Occasional Paper, University of Windsor, 1978.

(with J. Alex Murray) "Canadian Attitudes Toward U.S. Influence: a Changing Pattern", paper presented to the Canadian Association of Geographers, London, Ont., 1978.

(with J. Alex Murray) "The Changing Climate for Foreign Investment in Canada", paper presented to the annual meeting of the Southern Economic Association, Washington, 1978.

(with Robert Krause) "Voting Behaviour and Electoral Strategies in the 1976 Progressive-Conservative Leadership Convention, Canadian Journal of Political Science, XII (1979), pp. 97-136.

(with Dick Moriarty) "A Skeptical Public Favours Self Regulation of Aggressiveness in Televised Sports", CAPHER (Journal of the Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation), XLV (Sept.-Oct. 1978), pp. 19-23.

(with Dick Moriarty) "Summary of a Public Attitude Survey of Canada on School/Amateur Sports, Amateur and Professional Athletics, and the Effects of TV on Sports/Athletic Aggression", Comment on Education, Feb. 1979, pp. 17-18.

(with J. Alex Murray) "Canadian Attitudes Toward Continental Economic Issues", paper presented to the 'Canada Today' Conference, Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio, 1979. Also published as an Institute for Canadian-American Studies Occasional Paper, University of Windsor, 1979.

(with J. Alex Murray, George L. Shields, and Henny Wolfe) "Public Attitudes and the Canadian Economy: a Survey of Business and Economic Outlook", International Business Studies Occasional Paper, University of Windsor, 1979.

"Data Based Teaching in Political Science", presentation to the Invitational Seminar on Data Based Teaching in the Social Sciences, International Federation of Data Organizations (IFDO), Waterloo, Ont., 1979. Published in L'utilisation de données dans l'enseignement des sciences sociales, UNESCO, Paris.

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) "Change in the Garden: the 1979 Federal Election", paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal, 1979.

(with J. Alex Murray) "Attitudes of Canadians Toward Current Foreign Policy and Trade Issues", Institute for Canadian-American Studies Occasional Paper, University of Windsor, 1980.

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) "Partisanship, Voting Behaviour, and Electoral Outcomes in Canada", Comparative Politics, XII (1980), pp. 401-17.

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) "Processes of Political Change in Canada: Issues and Leaders in the 1979 Federal Election", paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, 1980.

"Sources of Long Term and Short Term Electoral Change in Canada", paper presented to the Conference on Critical Electoral Forces: Changing Mass Politics in Advanced Industrial Societies, Florida State University, 1980.

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) "The Politics of Limited Change: the 1979 Federal Election", Carleton Occasional Papers Series, no 8, 1981.

(with J. Alex Murray and Kai Hildebrandt) "Canadian Public Attitudes and Economic Policy in the 1980's", paper presented to the annual meeting of the Western Social Science Association, San Diego, 1981.

"Canada: System Stability and Individual Change", paper presented to the Workshop on Electoral Volatility, European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, University of Lancaster, 1981.

"Constitutional Issues in Canada and the Concept of Legitimacy", presentation to the annual meeting of the British Association for Canadian Studies, Lincoln College (Oxford), 1981.

"The Dynamic Properties of Party Identification: a Four Nation Comparison", European Journal of Political Research, IX (1981), pp. 257-68. Reprinted in Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg (eds.), Controversies in Voting Behavior, 2nd ed. (NY, Freeman, 1984).

"Polarization and Dealignment in the British Party System: the SDP-Liberal Alliance", paper presented to te annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, 1982.

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) "Voting Behaviour and the Outcome of the 1979 Federal Election: the Impact of Leaders and Issues", Canadian Journal of Political Science, XV (1982), pp. 517-552. Reprinted in Joseph Wearing (ed.), The Ballot and Its Message (Toronto, Copp-Clark, 1992).

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) "Sovereignty-Association 'Non', Parti Québécois 'Oui': Trends in Political Support in Quebec", American Review of Canadian Studies, XII (1982). Reprinted in Ronald G. Landes (ed.), Canadian Politics: a Comparative Reader (Toronto, Prentice-Hall, 1985).

"Is There Life After Dealignment?" paper presented to the Workshop on Electoral Behaviour, European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, Freiburg, West Germany, 1983.

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) "Political Support and Voting Behaviour in the Quebec Referendum", in Allan Kornberg and Harold D. Clarke (eds.), Political Support in Canada: the Crisis Years (Duke University Press, 1983). Also published in French in Jean Cre^te (ed.), Le comportement électoral au Québec (Chicoutimi, Gaetan Morin, 1984).

(with J. Alex Murray and George L. Shields) Public Attitudes and the Canadian Economy: 1984, Laurier Institute for Business and Economic Studies, 1984.

(with J. Alex Murray) "Forecasting Foreign Investment Policy from Public Attitudes: Ten Years of Canadian Data", paper presented to the International Symposium on Forecasting, London, 1984. (with J. Alex Murray) "Public Opinion and North American Integration: Towards a New Nationalism?", in Jon H. Pammett and Brian Tomlin (eds.), The Integration Question: Political Economy and Public Policy in Canada and North America (Toronto, Addison-Wesley, 1984).

"Canada: the Politics of Stable Dealignment", in Paul Allen Beck, Russell Dalton, and Scott Flanagan (eds.), Electoral Change in Industrial Democracies (Princeton University Press, 1984).

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) Absent Mandate: the Politics of Discontent in Canada (Toronto, Gage, 1984).

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson, and Jon H. Pammett) "Partisan Instability in Canada: Evidence from a New Panel Study", American Political Science Review, LXXVIII (1984), pp. 470-484. Reprinted in Joseph Wearing (ed.), The Ballot and Its Message (Toronto, Copp-Clark, 1992).

"Performance of the Electoral System in Recent British and Canadian Elections: Advancing the Case for Electoral Reform", paper presented to the Workshop on Comparative Electoral Systems, European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, Salzburg, Austria, 1984.

(with J. Alex Murray) Public Attitudes and the Canadian Economy: 1985, Laurier Institute for Business and Economic Studies, 1985.

(with J. Alex Murray) "Trade Policy Initiatives for the Canadian Automotive Industry", paper presented to the Seoul Pan-Pacific Conference, Seoul, Korea, 1985.

(with Kai Hildebrandt, Harold D. Clarke, and Jon H. Pammett) "Issue Volatility and Partisan Linkages in Canada, Great Britain, the United States, and the Federal Republic of Germany", European Journal of Political Research, XIII (1985), pp. 237-63.

(with Harold D. Clarke and Jon H. Pammett) "Economic Issues, Voting Behaviour, and Electoral Mandates", paper presented to the World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Paris, 1985.

"Canada", in Ivor Crewe and David Denver (eds.), Electoral Volatility and Partisan Change in Western Democracies (London, Croom-Helm, 1985).

"Partisan Change and Dealignment in Canada, Great Britain, and the United States", Comparative Politics, XVII (1985), pp. 379-98. (with Richard G. Price) "Great Debates: the Televised Leadership Debates of 1979", Canadian Journal of Political Science, XVIII (1985), pp. 135-53. Reprinted in Joseph Wearing (ed.), The Ballot and Its Message (Toronto, Copp-Clark, 1992).

(with Paul de Guchtenerie and Richard G. Niemi) "A Compendium of Academic Survey Studies of Elections Around the World", Electoral Studies, IV (1985), pp. 159-174.

(with J. Alex Murray) "Open for Business?: Foreign Investment and Trade Issues in Canada", paper presented to the Conference on Comparative Political Economy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1986

(with Richard G. Price) "The Effects of Televised Campaign Debates on Attitudes and Voting Behavior in the 1984 Canadian Federal Election", paper presented to the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 1987.

"The Flexible Canadian Electorate", in Howard Penniman (ed.), Canada at the Polls: 1984 (Duke University Press, 1987)

"Waiting for Realignment", presented to the round table "Whither the Electorates of North America and Western Europe?", annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, McMaster University, 1987.

"Performance of the Electoral System in Recent British and Canadian Elections: Advancing the Case for Electoral Reform", in Manfred Holler (ed.), The Logic of Party Systems (Dordrecht, Nijhoff, 1987).

"Televised Campaign Debates: Party Strategies and Voting Behaviour", paper presented to the Workshop on Party Strategies and Party/Voter Linkages, European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, Rimini, Italy, 1988.

"Public Opinion and the Free Trade Agreement", presented to the Round Table on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, University of Windsor, 1988.

(with J. Alex Murray) "Open for Business?: Foreign Investment and Trade Issues in Canada", in Harold D. Clarke, Marianne Stewart, and Gary Zuk (eds.), Economic Decline and Political Change (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1989).

"The Changeable Canadian Voter", in Allan Frizzell, Jon H. Pammett, and Anthony Westell (eds.), The Canadian General Election of 1988 (Carleton University Press, 1989). "On the Meaning of Elections", paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Laval University, 1989.

"The Canadian Federal Election of 1988", Electoral Studies VIII (1989), pp. 163-67.

"Party Strategies and the Use of Televised Campaign Debates", European Journal of Political Research, XVIII (1990), pp. 121-141.

(with Richard G. Price) "Campaign Debates and Party Leader Images: the 'Encounter '88' Case", paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, University of Victoria, 1990.

"Can an Election be a Referendum?", paper presented to the Roth symposium on Political Parties and the Future of Democracy, University of North Texas, 1990.

(with Richard G. Price) "The Impact of Televised Campaign Debates on Public Opinion and Electoral Behaviour in Canada", paper presented to the annual conference of the International Communications Association, Dublin, Ireland, 1990.

(with W. L. Miller, Harold D. Clarke, Martin Harrop and Paul Whiteley) How Voters Change: the 1987 British Election Campaign in Perspective (Oxford University Press, 1990).

"A New Proposal for Electoral Reform in Canada", paper presented to the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, Toronto, 1990.

"Political Leadership in Canada: Personal and Party Images", paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, 1990.

"The Canadian Voter", in Robert Krause and Ronald Wagenberg (eds.) Readings in Canadian Politics (Toronto, Holt-Rinehart, 1991).

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson and Jon H. Pammett) Absent Mandate: Interpreting Change in Canadian Elections, 2nd edition (Toronto, Gage, 1991).

"Voting for Free Trade?: the Canadian Voter and the 1988 Federal Election", in Paul Fox and Graham White (eds.), Politics: Canada, 7th edition (Toronto, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1991).

(with Paul de Guchtenerie and Richard G. Niemi) "A Compendium of Academic Survey Studies of Elections Around the World: Update", Electoral Studies, X (1991), pp. 231-43. "Public Perceptions of the Electoral Process", paper presented to the Conference on Elections, Parties, and Public Opinion, Worcester College, Oxford, 1991. Subsequently published in British Politics Yearbook (London, Harvester-Wheatsheaf, 1992).

"The Strategy and Tactics of Televised Campaign Debates in Canada and the United States", paper presented to the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, Leiden University, The Netherlands, 1993.

"Getting It Wrong: the Polls and the 1992 British Election", paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Carleton University, 1993.

"A Great Big NO: Canada's Constitutional Referendum of 1992" Electoral Studies, XII (1993), pp. 257-63.

(with Jon H. Pammett) "Public Attitudes and Voting Behaviour in Canada's 1992 Constitutional Referendum", paper presented to the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, Madrid, 1994.

"Leaders and Voters: the Public Images of Canadian Political Leaders", in Maureen Mancuso et al. (eds.), Leaders and Leadership in Canada (Toronto, Oxford University Press, 1994).

"The Leaders' Debates: Critical Event or Non Event?", in Allan Frizzell, Jon H. Pammett and Anthony Westell (eds.), The Canadian General Election of 1993 (Ottawa, Carleton University Press, 1994), pp. 127-42.

"The Canadian Federal Election of 1993", Electoral Studies XIII (1994), pp. 163-68.

"The Canadian Voter in 1993", in Robert Krause and Ronald Wagenberg (eds.), Introductory Readings in Canadian Politics and Government, 2nd edition (Toronto, Copp-Clark Pitman, 1995, pp. 369-86.

"Citizens' Revenge: the Canadian Voter and the 1993 Federal Election", in Paul Fox and Graham White (eds.), Politics: Canada, 8th edition (Toronto, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1995).

(with Jon H. Pammett) "Referendum Voting: Attitudes and Behaviour in the October 1992 Referendum", Canadian Journal of Political Science XXVIII (1995), pp. 1-25.

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson and Jon H. Pammett) Absent Mandate: Canadian Electoral Politics in an Era of Restructuring, 3rd edition (Toronto, Gage, 1996). "Another Referendum in Quebec: What's New or deja vu?", paper presented to the Conference on Elections, Parties, and Public Opinion, London Guildhall University, 1995.

"Locating Canada's Reform Party and Bloc Québécois in the 'New Parties' Universe", paper presented to the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, University of Oslo, 1996.

"Framing the Question: the Politics of Question Wording in the 1980 and 1995 Quebec Referendums", paper presented to the annual meeting of the British Association for Canadian Studies, University of Exeter, 1996.

(with Richard G. Niemi and Pippa Norris) Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (Beverly Hills CA, Sage Publications, 1996).

"The Sovereignty Generation: a Cohort Analysis of the Quebec Electorate", paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, St. John's Newfoundland, 1997.

"The Leaders' Debate (...and the Winner Is...)", in Allan Frizzell and Jon H. Pammett (eds.), The Canadian General Election of 1997 (Toronto, Dundurn Press, 1998).

“How the Electoral System Exacerbates Canada’s ‘Unity Problem’ ... and What to do About It”, paper presented to the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, University of Warwick, 1998.

"The Canadian Federal Election of 1997", Electoral Studies, XVII (1998), pp. 132-37.

(with Jon H. Pammett) “Attitudes Toward Sovereignty and Voting Behaviour in the Quebec Referendums”, paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Ottawa, 1998.

“Leadership Selection and Party Renewal”, paper presented to the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, University of Mannheim, 1999.

“New Challenges Demand New Thinking About Our Antiquated Electoral System”, in Henry Milner (ed.), Making Every Vote Count (Toronto, Broadview Press, 1999)

“Referendums and Elections: Do Voters Behave Differently? — When and How?”, paper presented to the International Political Science Association, World Congress, Québec, 2000. “Referendums and Elections: How Do Campaigns Differ?”, paper presented to the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, University of Copenhagen, 2000.

(with Harold D. Clarke, Jane Jenson and Jon H. Pammett) “Absent Mandate: Canadian Electoral Politics in an Era of Restructuring”, in Hugh Thorburn and Alan Whitehorn (eds.), Party Politics in Canada, 8th edition (Toronto, Prentice-Hall, 2001).

“Did Your Vote Count in November? Reviving the Debate on Electoral Reform in Canada” Literary Review of Canada IX (March 2001), pp. 12-13.

(with Jon H. Pammett, Erin Thiessen and Antoine Bilodeau) Canadian Voting Turnout in Comparative Perspective, research report prepared for Elections: Canada, 2001.

(with Jon H. Pammett) “Sovereignty, Leadership and Voting in the Quebec Referendums” Electoral Studies XX (2001), pp. 265-280.

“Democratizing Party Leadership Selection”, Party Politics VII (2001), pp. 323-41.

“Opinion Formation and Reversal in Referendum Campaigns”, paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, 2001.

“What Can Comparative Research Tell Us About the Next Quebec Referendum?”, paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Québec, 2001.

“Consulting the People: the Canadian Experience with Referendums”, in Joanna Everitt and Brenda O’Neill (eds.), Political Behaviour in a Canadian Context (Toronto, Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 247-67.

"The Canadian Federal Election, November 2000", Electoral Studies, XXI (2002), pp. 655-59.

(with Jon H. Pammett) Explaining the Turnout Decline in Canadian Federal Elections: a New Survey of Non-Voters, research report prepared for Elections Canada, 2002.

(with Pippa Norris and Richard G. Niemi) Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting, (London, Sage 2002).

“Partisan Realignment and Dealignment in Canada”, paper presented to the annual conference of the Japanese Association of Canadian Studies, Kyoto, 2002. “Referendums and Elections: How Do Campaigns Differ?”, in David Farrell and Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, Do Political Campaigns Matter?: Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums, (London, Routledge, 2002), pp. 145-62.

“Why Canada Needs a New Electoral System”, paper presented at the annual Canadian Studies Seminar, Kwansei Gakuin University, 2002.

Interests, Information and Voting in Referendums, special issue of the European Journal of Political Research (co-edited with Palle Svensson), vol XLI (October, 2002).

“Opinion Change and Voting Behaviour in Referendums”, European Journal of Political Research, XLI (2002), pp. 711-732.

The Politics of Direct Democracy: Referendums in Global Perspective, (Toronto, Broadview, 2003).

(with Jon H. Pammett) “Elections and Participation: the Meanings of the Turnout Decline”, paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Halifax, 2003.

(with Jon H. Pammett) ”Confronting the Problem of Declining Voter Turnout Among Youth”, Electoral Insight, vol 5, #2 (July 2003), pp. 3-8

(with Jon H. Pammett) “Why Young People Don’t Vote: Evidence from a New Canadian Survey”, paper presented to the EPOP annual conference, Cardiff, 2003.

“Measuring Campaign Effects in Initiatives and Referendums”, paper presented to the S.I.S.E. Conference on Electoral Campaigns, Venice, 2003.

“Theoretical and Practical Issues in the Study and Conduct of Initiatives and Referendums”, paper prepared for the International IDEA Workshop on Direct Democracy, London, 2004.

(with Jon H. Pammett) “Four Vicious Circles of Turnout: Competitiveness, Regionalism, Culture and Participation in Canada, paper presented to the Joint Sessions Workshops of the European Consortium for Political Research, Uppsala, Sweden, 2004.

“Something Old, Something New: Electoral Reform in Japan”, in Henry Milner (ed.), Steps Toward Making Every Vote Count: Canada and Its Provinces in Comparative Context (Toronto, Broadview, 2004), pp. 175-90. “What Can Comparative Research Tell Us About Future European Referendums?”, paper presented to the EPOP annual conference, Oxford, 2004

“The Federal Election in Canada: June 2004", Electoral Studies XXIV (2005), pp. 338-44

(with Jon H. Pammett) “Behind the Turnout Decline”, In Jon H. Pammett and Christopher Dornan (eds.), The Canadian General Election of 2004 (Toronto, Dundurn Press, 2005), pp. 338-60

“Making Votes Count: How Well Did Our Electoral System Perform?”, Electoral Insight VII (January 2005), pp. 37-41.

“Saving the Pound or Voting for Europe?: Expectations for Referendums on the Constitution and the Euro”, Journal of Elections, Parties and Public Opinion XV (2005), pp. 169-196

“The European Constitution Referendums: What We Already Know”, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), Stockholm, 2006 I (with Azin Ghatreh Samani) “Why Not PR? An Alternative Proposal For Electoral Reform in Ontario”, paper presented to the Fair Vote Canada Workshop on Electoral Reform in Ontario, University of Toronto Law School, 2006.

“Opinion Formation and Change in Referendum Campaigns”, paper presented to the Schaeffergården Conference on the European Referendums, Copenhagen, 2006

(with Jon H. Pammett) “Voter Turnout in 2006: More Than Just the Weather” in Jon H. Pammett & Christopher Dornan (eds.), The Canadian Federal Election of 2006 (Toronto, Dundurn, 2006), pp. 318-342.

“Referendums and Deliberative Democracy”, paper presented to the World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Fukuoka, Japan, July 2006

(with Laura Hodgins, Ali Mian and Azin Ghatreh Samani) Three Options for Electoral Reform in Ontario, research report prepared for the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly, 2006

“Political Volatility in Canada”, in Robert Brym (ed.), Society in Question, 5th edition (Toronto: Nelson, 2007), pp. 166-178.

“Realignment and Dealignment in Canadian Federal Politics”, in Alain Gagnon and Brian Tanguay (eds), Canadian Political Parties in Transition, 3rd edition (Toronto, Broadview, 2007), pp. 163-177.

“European Elections and Democratic Accountability”, in Joan DeBardeleben and Achim Hurrelmann (eds.), Democratic Dilemmas of Multi-Level Governance: Accountability and Legitimacy in the European Union (London, Palgrave, 2007), pp. 139-157.

“The Federal Election in Canada: January 2006", Electoral Studies XXVI (2007), pp. 716-720.

“Opinion Formation and Change in Referendum Campaigns”, in Claes de Vrees (ed.), The Dynamics of Referendum Campaigns: an International Perspective (London, Palgrave, 2007), pp. 21-44.

“Direct Democracy: in Practice: a Global Overview”, paper presented to the Conference on Direct Democracy in Latin America, Universidad Nacional de San Martin, Buenos Aires, 2007

“Citizen Involvement in Constitutional Politics: European and Canadian Experiences”, paper presented to the Conference on Citizen Participation in the EU and Canada: Challenges and Change, Carleton University, 2007

“Voting NO: the Negative Bias in Referendum Campaigns”, paper presented to the ECPR Joint Sessions Workshops, Helsinki, 2007

(with Heather Bastedo and Catherine Baquero) “The Quiet Referendum: Why Electoral Reform Failed in Ontario”, paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Vancouver, 2008

(with Virginia Beremendi, Andrew Ellis, Bruno Kaufman, Miriam Kornblith, Paddy McGuire, Theo Schiller and Palle Svensson) Direct Democracy: The International IDEA Handbook (Stockholm, International IDEA, 2008

(with Heather Bastedo and Jon H. Pammett) “The Problem of Young Voters: A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis”, paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, 2008.

“Referendum Democracy: Information, Campaigns and Voting”, in Zsolt Enyedi (ed.) Referendums in Hungary and Around the World. (Budapest: DKMKA, 2009), pp. 107-132. “Coalition Government: When It Happens, How It Works” , in Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin (eds.), Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis (University of Toronto Press, 2009), pp. 123-135.

“The Federal Election in Canada: October 2008", Electoral Studies XXVIII (2009), pp. 326-329

(with Jon H. Pammett) “The 2008 Election: Long-term and Short-term Assessments” in Jon H. Pammett and Christopher Dornan (eds.), The Canadian Federal Election of 2008 (Toronto, Dundurn, 2009), pp. 290-312

“How and Why Electoral Reform Fails: Evaluating the Canadian Experience”, paper presented to the ECPR Joint Sessions Workshops, Lisbon, 2009

(with Nicole Goodman, Heather Bastedo and Jon H. Pammett) “‘Facebooking’ Young Voters in the 2008 Federal Election Campaign”, paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Ottawa, 2009.

“Citizen Involvement in Constitutional Politics: European and Canadian Experiences”, in Joan De Bardeleben and Jon H. Pammett (eds.), Activating the Citizen: Dilemmas of Participation in Europe and Canada (London, Palgrave, 2009), pp. 233-256

“Campaign Tactics and Outcomes in Referendums: a Comparative Analysis”, in Maija Setlä and Theo Schiller (eds.), Referendums and Representative Democracy: Responsiveness, Accountability and Deliberation (London, Routledge, 2009), pp. 139-161

(with Jon H. Pammett) “Voter Turnout” in Heather MacIvor (ed.), Election. (Toronto, Emond Montgomery), 2010, pp. 251-267

(with Richard G. Niemi and Pippa Norris) Comparing Democracies 3: Elections and Voting in the 21st Century ( London, Sage, 2010)

“Bringing Issues onto the Legislative Agenda”, paper presented to the International IDEA Workshop on Exploring Trends in Participatory Democracy, Amman, Jordan, 2010

(with Jon H. Pammett, Judith I. McKenzie and André Turcotte) Dynasties and Interludes: Past and Present in Canadian Electoral Politics (Toronto, Dundurn Press, 2010) “The Failure of Electoral Reforms in Canada”, Political Science LXI (2010), pp. 41-62

(with Jon H. Pammett) “Voting, Elections and the 2008 Economic Crisis in Europe”, paper presented to the Conference on the Economic and Political Impacts of the Economic Crisis in the EU and Eastern Europe, Carleton University, 2010

“Tough Sell: The Referendum on Electoral Reform”, paper presented to the annual EPOP conference, University of Essex, 2010.

“Electoral Reform and Direct Democracy in Canada: When Citizens Become Involved,” West European Politics XXXIV (2011), pp. 551-567

(with Nicole Goodman, Heather Bastedo and Jon H. Pammett) “Young Canadians in the 2008 Federal Election Campaign: Using Facebook to Probe Perceptions of Citizenship and Participation”, Canadian Journal of Political Science XLIV (2011), pp. 859-881

“The Federal Election in Canada: May 2011", Electoral Studies XXXI (2012), pp. 239-242

(with Jon H. Pammett) “The Evolution of the Harper Dynasty”, in Jon H. Pammett and Christopher Dornan, The Canadian Federal Election of 2011 (Toronto, Dundurn Press, 2011), pp. 303-330

(with Jon H. Pammett) “Harper vs. History: Dynasties and Interludes in Canadian Electoral Politics”, paper presented to the annual conference of the American Political Science Association, Seattle WA, September 2011.

(with Jon H. Pammett) “Electoral Effects of the Economic Crisis in Europe,” paper presented to the Conference on Valence Politics, Texas A & M University, March 1-3, 2012

(with Jon H. Pammett) “The Fate of Governing Parties in Times of Economic Crisis” Electoral Studies XXXII (2013), pp. 494- 499

“The Canadian Voter in a New Conservative Era” in Robert J. Brym, Society in Question, 7th edition. (Toronto, Nelson, 2014)

(with Jon H. Pammett) “Attitudes toward Democratic Norms and Practices: Canada in Comparative Perspective” in Elisabeth Gidengil and Heather Bastedo (eds.), Canadian Democracy From the Ground Up (Vancouver, UBC Press, 2014) (with Richard G. Niemi and Pippa Norris) Comparing Democracies 4: Elections and Voting in a Changing World (London, Sage, 2014)

(with Jon H. Pammett and André Turcotte) Dynasties and Interludes: Past and Present in Canadian Electoral Politics, 2nd edition (Toronto, Dundurn Press, 2016 )

(with Harold D Clarke, Jane Jenson and Jon H. Pammett) Absent Mandate: Strategies and Choices in Canadian Elections (University of Toronto Press, 2019)

EXHIBIT "B"

This is Exhibit "B" to the affidavit of Lawrence LeDuc, affirmed by videoconference on the 23rd day of December, 2020.

______Nicolas M. Rouleau (54515D)

A Commissioner, etc.

EXHIBIT "C"

This is Exhibit "C" to the affidavit of Lawrence LeDuc, affirmed by videoconference on the 23rd day of December, 2020.

______Nicolas M. Rouleau (54515D)

A Commissioner, etc.

Gmail - Expert Opinion on Canada's FPTP voting system https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=46b8a7ea95&view=pt&search=all...

Nicolas Rouleau

Expert Opinion on Canada's FPTP voting system

Nicolas Rouleau 9 juillet 2020 à 15:56 À : Larry LeDuc

Dear Professor LeDuc,

It was great to talk to you yesterday. I write to confirm that we are retaining you to provide an expert affidavit in the court case Fair Voting BC and Springtide Collective for Democracy Society v Attorney General of Canada.

Your duties as an expert

As an expert, you have the duty to provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion. Your opinion must be impartial in the sense that it reflects an objective assessment of the questions at hand. It must be independent in the sense that it is the product of your independent judgment, uninfluenced by who has retained you or the outcome of the litigation. It must be unbiased in the sense that it does not unfairly favour one party's position over another.

Similarly, rule 4.1.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure requires you:

(a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;

(b) to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within your area of expertise; and

(c) to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue.

It is essential for you to understand that this duty prevails over any obligation you could owe to the party that retained you or in whose name you've been retained. The acid test is whether your opinion would not change regardless of which party retained you.

Format of the affidavit

Your expert affidavit should contain the following information:

1. Your name, address and area of expertise.

2. Your qualifications and employment and educational experiences in your area of expertise.

3. The instructions provided to you in relation to the proceeding.

4. The nature of the opinion being sought and your opinion on the following issues:

(i) Can you explain the impact of Canada's current FPTP voting system on the distribution of parliamentary seats? What would change under other voting system?

(ii) Can you explain the impact of Canada's current FPTP voting system on the representation of Canadian voters (including women, minorities, and ideologies)? What would change under other voting systems?

(iii) Can you explain the impact of Canada's current FPTP voting system on the participation of Canadian voters in the electoral process? What would change under other voting systems?

(iv) Can you provide an opinion on the previous use of PR systems in a Canadian context as well as broadly review previous efforts to transform voting systems in Canada?

5. Your expert opinion respecting each issue and, where there is a range of opinions given, a summary of the range

1 sur 2 Gmail - Expert Opinion on Canada's FPTP voting system https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=46b8a7ea95&view=pt&search=all...

and the reasons for your opinion within that range.

6. The reasons for your opinion, including,

i. a description of the factual assumptions on which the opinion is based,

ii. a description of any research conducted by you that led you to form the opinion, and

iii. a list of every document, if any, that you relied on in forming the opinion.

7. A signed acknowledgement of your expert’s duty (Form 53, found here: found here: http://ontariocourtforms.on. ca/static/media/uploads/courtforms/civil/53/rcp-53-e.pdf)

Thank you very much.

Nicolas... ------nicolasrouleau.com

2 sur 2

EXHIBIT "D"

This is Exhibit "D" to the affidavit of Lawrence LeDuc, affirmed by videoconference on the 23rd day of December, 2020.

______Nicolas M. Rouleau (54515D)

A Commissioner, etc.

References Christopher J. Anderson and Christine A. Guillory. “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems.” American Political Science Review vol. 91 (1997), pp. 66-81

Alan Cairns. “The Electoral System and the Party System in Canada: 1921-1965.” Canadian Journal of Political Science vol. 1 (1968), pp. 55-80

Fair Vote Canada, “Proportional Representation in British Columbia, New Brunswick, PEI and Quebec: Assessments and Recommendations on Proposed Systems in Four Provinces.” www.fairvotecanada.ca

David Farrell. Electoral Systems: a Comparative Introduction, 2nd edition. (Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2011)

Foa, R.S., Klassen, A., Slade, M., Rand, A. and R. Collins. 2020. “The Global Satisfaction with Democracy Report 2020.” Cambridge, United Kingdom: Centre for the Future of Democracy.

Michael Gallagher. “Electoral Institutions and Representation” in Lawrence LeDuc, Richard G. Niemi and Pippa Norris, Comparing Democracies 4: Elections and Voting in a Changing World. (London, Sage, 2014)

Roger Gibbins,“Early Warning, No Response: Alan Cairns and Electoral Reform” in Gerald Kernerman and Philip Resnick, Insiders and Outsiders: Alan Cairns and the Reshaping of Canadian Citizenship (Vancouver, UBC Press, 2005), pp. 39-50

Elisabeth Gidengil and Heather Bastedo, “Taking Stock of Canadian Democracy from the Ground Up” in Elisabeth Gidengil and Heather Bastedo, Canadian Democracy from the Ground Up (Vancouver, UBC Press, 2014), pp. 253-294.

International IDEA. Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook. (Stockholm, International IDEA, 2005)

International IDEA. www.idea.int/data-tools /data/voter-turnout

Mona Lena Krook. “The Political Representation of Women and Minorities.” in Lawrence LeDuc, Richard G. Niemi and Pippa Norris, Comparing Democracies 4: Elections and Voting in a Changing World (London, Sage, 2014)

Lawrence LeDuc. “The Failure of Electoral Reform Proposals in Canada.” Political Science vol. 61 (2009), pp. 21-40.

Lawrence LeDuc, “Electoral Reform and Direct Democracy in Canada: When Citizens Become Involved”, West European Politics (2011) 34:3, 551-567

Lawrence LeDuc, Heather Bastedo and Catherine Baquero. “The Quiet Referendum: Why Electoral Reform Failed in Ontario,” paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association (Vancouver, 2008) Lawrence LeDuc and Jon H. Pammett. “Voter Turnout” in Heather MacIvor, Election (Toronto, Emond Montgomery, 2010), pp. 251-267

Lawrence LeDuc and Jon H. Pammett. “Attitudes toward Democratic Norms and Practices: Canada in Comparative Perspective” in Elisabeth Gidengil and Heather Bastedo, Canadian Democracy From the Ground Up (Vancouver, UBC Press, 2014), pp. 22-40 Law Commission. Voting Counts: Electoral Reform in Canada (Ottawa, Ministry of Public Works and Government Services, 2004) Library of Parliament, “Party Discipline and Free Votes” (2018): https://bdp.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201826E#a4 Henry Milner, “The Case for Proportional Representation in Canada” in Henry Milner, Making Every Vote Count: Reassessing Canada’s Electoral System (Toronto, Broadview, 1999), pp. 37- 50 Henry Milner. “First Past the Post? Progress Report on Electoral Reform Initiatives in Canadian Provinces.” IRPP Policy Matters vol. 5 (2004), pp. 1-36 Salomon Orellana, (2010) “How Electoral Systems Can Influence Policy Innovation”, Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 38(4), pp. 613-628 Jon H. Pammett, and Lawrence LeDuc. Explaining the Turnout Decline in Canadian Federal Elections: A New Survey of Non-Voters (Ottawa, Elections Canada, 2003) Dennis Pilon. The Politics of Voting (Toronto, Emond Montgomery, 2007) Carolina Plescia, André Blais & John Högström, “Do People Want a ‘Fairer’ Electoral System? An Experimental Study in Four Countries, European Journal of Political Research 59: 733–751, 2020 G. Bingham Powell, Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions (Yale University Press, 2000) Daniel Rubenson, André Blais, Patrick Fournier, Elisabeth Gidengil and Neil Nevitte. “Accounting for the Age Gap in Turnout.” Acta Politica vol. 39 (2004), pp. 407-21. Marian Sawer and Manon Tremblay, "Political Representation: The Gendered Effects of Voting Systems" in Marian Sawer, Fiona Jenkins, Karen Downing, How Gender Can Transform the Social Sciences: Innovation and Impact (Cham, Switzerland, Palgrave Pivot, 2020), pp, 39-46.

Daniel M. Smith. 2018. Electoral Systems and Voter Turnout. In The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, ed. Robert J. Pekkanen, Erik S. Herron and Matthew S. Shugart. Oxford University Press. Strengthening Democracy in Canada: Principles, Process and Public Engagement for Electoral Reform. Report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform (House of Commons, Ottawa, 2016) Jack Vowles. “The Politics of Electoral Reform in New Zealand.” International Political Science Review vol. 16 (1995), pp. 95-115