Don't Scrap the Voter Subsidy

Per-vote subsidies of political parties may seem unnecessary, but they make sure no vote is wasted.

In response to a question two weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterated his desire to eventually eliminate the public subsidy to political parties.

His basic argument – that Canadians should not be forced to become party donors simply by having exercised their right to vote – has a certain populist appeal, and it is hard to find anyone in today’s economic climate who doesn’t want to cut unnecessary government expenses.

But so long as Canadian elections remain based on the traditional first-past-the-post system, the alternative is even less tolerable.

For The Mark’s full election coverage, click here.

For a quick guide to where the parties stand on the major issues, click here.

In a typical first-past-the-post system, the one to which Canada would return should the government scrap the voter subsidy, it doesn’t matter if candidates win by one vote or by 1,000, if they win a majority of votes or just a plurality. The results are the same: The winner takes all.

Votes for losing candidates become virtually meaningless the moment the election results are announced, while voters who supported landslide winners – and particularly those who consider elections like this one unnecessary – are left to wonder why they bothered coming out in the first place.

The voter subsidy changes things. For now, Canadian ballots – at least at the federal level – are never wasted. Even if Canadians know that their candidate does not stand a chance of winning in a particular riding, they can be assured that their vote will make a difference.

It will serve as a $2 contribution to the political party of their choice, a donation that can then be used by that party to develop stronger policies and run a better campaign the next time.

Similarly, Canadians who might not think that they need to vote because their candidate already has overwhelming support in their riding can be assured that, by marking their ballot, they have strengthened the long-term health of their chosen party.

The current system retains the benefits of the first-past-the-post approach – which encourages majority governments that can act decisively and plan strategically – without compromising the ability of every Canadian voter to make a difference.

It is democratic without unnecessarily restricting the ability of well-supported governments to be bold, if not controversial.

It provides newer parties with the resources necessary to grow from popular, single-issue fringe groups to more comprehensive national political movements without granting them the power to hold governments hostage while doing so.

It gives Conservatives a reason to vote if they live in downtown Toronto, and Liberals a reason to go to the polls in Alberta.

Even if it was not intended as such, the public subsidy of political parties is a classic Canadian compromise.

With voter turnout in Canada at an all-time low in 2008, it is disappointing to hear that Canada’s prime minister does not feel that the subsidy is in what he has called “the public interest.”

Incentives that not only encourage citizens to vote, but also prevent the disenfranchisement of large groups of the population, are exactly what we need to ensure that we continue to live in a healthy democracy.

Calls for a rational debate over the size of the federal subsidy are absolutely legitimate. Perhaps it is too large, or too small. Canadians should have a conversation about this, and should do so soon.

But to eliminate the subsidy completely would do a disservice to voters across the country.

Today in Canada, we can all make our votes count. It would be a shame if a government concerned about the public interest took that away.

Photo courtesy of Reuters.