DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL
popular vote by approximately one per cent. Perhaps the most notable statistic to Islanders was that voter turnout fell to 76.4%, which was the lowest voter turnout since Elections PEI began recording voter turnout in 1966.
Five of the last seven elections on Prince Edward Island have resulted in similarly lopsided breakdowns. Of these, 2 have resulted in a single member opposition.
Anecdotally, a number of voters, particularly in the youth demographic, are indicating they feel there is a perceived lack of choice suitable to them and therefore, that their vote doesn’t matter.
For these reasons, amongst others, democratic reform has
“The historical development of voting rights in Canada and the view taken of such rights in other democracies leads inexorably to the conclusion that relative equality of voting power is fundamental to the right to vote enshrined in section 3 of the Charter. In fact, it may be seen as the dominant principle underlining our system of representational democracy.”
once again become an issue of relative importance to Islanders. It would be trite to say things have changed since the 2005 plebiscite. However, it wouldn’t likely come as a surprise to note that many Islanders have questioned whether there is any real prospect of a renewed attempt at democratic reform resulting in a different outcome than did the 2005 effort.
Pre-Plebiscite History of Democratic Reform on Prince Edward Island It is useful to review Prince Edward Island’s history of electoral reform, which is by many standards, extensive and hard fought.
Formal governance on the Island dates back to 1769 when the Island was declared a colony of British North America. By the mid 1770s the Island’s legislature consisted of a Governor, appointed Executive and Legislative Councils and a popularly elected House of Representatives, later known as the House of Assembly. Initially only Protestant males were allowed to vote, until Catholics won the franchise in 1830. In 1851, after a decade long fight by a group known as the reformers, responsible government was bestowed upon the Island, requiring the government to be accountable to the elected House of Assembly. In 1862 the Legislative Council became an elected body, though only those with at least £100 in freehold or leasehold property were permitted a vote. Since joining Canada, as a Province, in 1873, a number of democratic and institutional reforms have occurred. Among the reforms were: •
The introduction of the secret ballot in 1877. Repealed in 1879, the secret ballot was permanently reinstituted in 1913; •
The merger of the two 186 | The Parliamentarian | 2015: Issue Three
The extension of the franchise to women in 1922; •
The extension of
the franchise to Aboriginal Islanders in1963; •
The elimination of
the property requirement for Councilor electors in 1964; •
Increasing the size of the Legislature to 32 by adding two seats in the Charlottetown area prior to the 1966 election; and, •
houses of the Legislature in 1893 into a 30 member unicameral Legislative Assembly with each district electing a Councilor, using a property requirement for male electors and an Assemblyman elected by universal male suffrage. The dual-member riding system was unique and the property distinction between Councilor and Assemblyman introduced a perception of ‘two-classes’ of MLAs even though their powers as MLAs were equal; •
to section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees every Canadian Citizen the right to vote. The sections were alleged to permit a variance in the number of electors per district resulting in disproportionate representation, which the Electoral Boundaries Committee had previously recommended be addressed.
Reducing the voting age to 18 years prior to the 1970 election.
Despite the reforms that occurred after 1873, there was little alteration to the electoral districts themselves, aside from splitting the riding of Charlottetown into two separate ridings in the 1960s. Disparity in the number of electors per district resulted. In 1974, an Electoral Boundaries Committee and Sub Committee, of the Legislative Assembly were established. Recommendations flowing from the committee process, including a
redistribution of electoral ridings, failed to be adopted.
In 1991 Donald MacKinnon, a resident of the Island, took matters into his own hands, filing an application in the Province’s Supreme Court seeking a declaration that certain sections of the Elections Act should be repealed, as they were contrary
Mr. MacKinnon’s application was based on the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s decision in Dixon v. British Columbia (Attorney General), (1989) 59 D.L.R. 4th 247., wherein Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada) stated: “The historical development of voting rights in Canada and the view taken of such rights in other democracies leads inexorably to the conclusion that relative equality of voting power is fundamental to the right to vote enshrined in section 3 of the Charter. In fact, it may be seen as the dominant principle underlining our system of representational democracy. At the same time, absolute equality of voting power has never been required in Canada. It has been recognized since Confederation that some degree of deviation is permissible where other considerations so require.” She went on to say that it would be up to the legislature to determine the extent of the allowable deviation, within the confines of the principles inherent in the Charter. Mr. MacKinnon’s application was ultimately successful, prompting the institution of a further Electoral Boundaries Commission in 1994. The Commission recommended that the Island be represented by 27 single member districts. After much debate and amendment to the boundaries of the 27 districts, the recommendation
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104