Electoral System Reform in Canada: Objectives, Advocacy and Implications for Governance.” Canadian Policy Research Network Discussion Paper F/28
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is witnessing a growing debate about its processes of democratic governance, especially the issues associated with representation and responsiveness. CPRN has examined such questions in the past, with its work on The Society We Want, a project that assessed Canadians values and their expectations of our major public and private institutions. It has also published policy research on key new institutional arrangements such as the social union and the federal role in cities. This new paper by Dr. Leslie Seidle fits squarely within this tradition of attention to governance. In this paper, he takes a close look at the current debate about the electoral system and its impact on the composition and functioning of the House of Commons and provincial legislatures. The issue of electoral reform has gained prominence in part because it is so important to Canada’s basic constitutional framework. Leslie Seidle demonstrates that there are still concerns about distortions in political parties’ elected representation relative to their popular vote in the different regions. Beyond that, however, new links are increasingly being drawn between the electoral system and issues such as women’s representation, access to legislative representation for smaller political parties, voter turnout and the power of the executive. Critics of the present system contend that our legislative institutions do not reflect Canada’s highly diverse population as well as they should and that having a wider range of voices heard within them would enhance responsiveness in governance. An important – and positive – development is that this debate has moved beyond academic circles. A number of organizations promoting electoral reform have emerged in the past few years. This paper includes brief case studies of four such groups, three of which are provincially
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".