After reading numerous columns, editorials, and opinion pieces, I finally understand electoral reform.  The substance of any proposed new system is irrelevant.  The real question concerns the process that we use to get to a new system, specifically whether any changes will be implemented through a referendum. The referendum question is becoming a national obsession – at least among columnists, pundits and opposition politicians.  When experts testify before the Parliamentary committee studying the matter, the media barely mentions their actual proposals and instead focuses on where they stand on the referendum issue. Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion is the subject of a witch-hunt by certain members of the committee who are demanding that he testify.  Do they want to hear this former political scientist's views on what a new Canadian electoral system might look like?  No, they want to ask him about a referendum. Since the chattering classes have decided that it's all about a referendum, I feel its time to settle the matter once and for all by asking Canadians what they think.  I would like to propose a national vote on whether we need a referendum on electoral reform. Yes, I think we should have a referendum on whether we should hold a referendum – we could call it a pre-referendum. It's a marvellous idea.  Think of the campaign.  Those who don't like referendums could spend tons of time arguing that complex issues cannot simply be boiled down to a yes or no proposition. They could point out that, according to Elections Canada, a referendum would cost over $300 million. And most of all, they could demonstrate their intellectual superiority by quoting Edmund Burke and using terms like “Brexit” and “status quo bias” over and over again. If they are really clever they could even work in a reference to Donald Trump in talking about the dangers of over-simplifying difficult questions in an attempt to fool a busy populace. Those in favour of a referendum on electoral reform could have great fun too.  They could talk about the common sense of ordinary citizens and contrast it with the elitist attitudes of the so-called experts who have gotten us into most of the messes facing the world. I would advise them not to use the word Brexit in making their arguments.  They could, however, also mention Donald Trump, holding him up as the negative by-product of a society that fails to take the views of the masses seriously. The federal government could offer consultation tool kits to assist Canadians in holding community dialogues on the pre-referendum.  Snooty columnists could write condescending columns making fun of the kits. The best thing about a pre-referendum is that everybody could avoid talking about the actual issue.  Politicians would love it because they wouldn't have to take a position on the matter and pundits and columnists would love it because writing about process is much easier than doing the research and analysis needed to take an informed position on specific electoral reform proposals. Those favouring electoral reform would not have to actually define the problem they are trying to solve.  They would not have to outline how a change to our voting system would assist Canada in dealing with a lagging economy, income inequality, climate change, or reconciliation with our Indigenous peoples.  They would never have to explain what they really mean by slogans like  “Make Every Vote Count” or “Make all Votes Equal and Effective”, particularly when it comes to the votes of those supporting non-competitive parties or candidates.  Slogans, by the way, that often remind me of Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average. Focusing on the referendum question would also greatly assist those opposed to changing our electoral system. They too could avoid tough questions.  They wouldn't have to explain the fairness of having majority governments elected with less than 40% of the vote.  There would be no need to defend our present political system that seems to increasingly focus on gaining power by appealing to narrower and narrower coalitions, pushing aside any voices calling for the type of radical change that our country might need. Electoral reform is a serious business.  There is nothing easy or straightforward about the issue and reaching any sort of decision is going to require a great deal of public education, intelligent debate and thoughtful consideration. None of this is going to happen, however, as long as we continue to be mired in this endless discussion over process.  Yes, my idea is silly. But unless we quickly change the focus of the current debate and actually start to talk about the best system of political representation for our country, my proposal is going to start to seem less and less ridiculous.   John Milloy is a former MPP and Ontario cabinet minister currently serving as the co-director of the Centre for Public Ethics and assistant professor of public ethics at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, and the inaugural practitioner in residence in Wilfrid Laurier University's Political Science department. He is also a lecturer in the University of Waterloo's Master of Public Service Program. Milloy is the editor of, and a contributor to, Faith and Politics Matters (Novalis, 2015).