Making Votes Count: Why Canada Needs Electoral Reform
(Katarina Martins/ The McGill Policy Association)
As another Canadian election season dips below the horizon, the system we use to elect our representatives should consequently be evaluated. Voters eager to cast their ballot in support of smaller parties, or a party other than the incumbents of their “safe” riding, are often dissuaded by refrains of “you’ll be throwing away your vote.” While Canada is not a two-party system, voting under First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) does make it feel like one sometimes.
What is First-Past-the-Post?
FPTP is an electoral system where representatives are elected to represent a federal riding if they receive the most votes in that riding, regardless of the margin. On the surface, the logic is sound, but the real-world implications are far more dire. For example, in 2015, the federal Liberals won with 39.5 percent of the popular vote, forming a majority government by disproportionately gaining over 54 percent of seats. With this, the Liberals were able to pass legislation otherwise opposed by parties who were collectively supported by 60.5 percent of the population. It’s worth considering how representative policy-making really is if under 50 percent of the electorate can drive essentially 100 percent of the government.
Additionally, where certain parties win in a riding over several elections, they may consider that riding "safe.” Thus, voters supporting a different party in such ridings may not even cast their ballot, feeling their individual vote holds no weight. If voting is essential to the democratic process, why should citizens feel their votes are meaningless? Indeed, studies show that Proportional Representation (PR) increases voter turnout, conceivably for the very reason that individuals believe their votes hold greater significance.
Unfortunately, electoral reform can be difficult to pass if it requires the support of a majority government owing their power to FPTP. Yet, Canada is one of only three Western democracies still using FPTP, perhaps showing that electoral reform is a critical commitment to progress. As such, a Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system could be a better option.
Why Proportional Representation?
Broadly, PR is an electoral system that translates the proportion of votes into roughly the same proportion of seats in legislature. While parties often have to receive a minimum threshold of votes to win seats in the legislature, it is far more representative of the electorate than FPTP is. It also means that, unless their party is set to not pass threshold, voters need not “vote strategically,” setting aside their principles lest a more unpalatable party win the riding.
It remains to be seen what system would be implemented with electoral reform, though both the NDP and the Greens have claimed MMP as an option. While not fully a PR system, MMP could retain the best of FPTP by keeping a vote for a local Member of Parliament (MP) to represent a constituency, but unlike FPTP would ensure that the composition of seats in legislature reflects the composition of votes. This can be done through a two-vote section, with a majority of seats decided through a vote for a local MP, and a large remainder of seats being allocated to reflect the composition of the second vote for a federal party. This also means voters can elect a local candidate of a different party than their federal affiliation, if it seems they would represent the riding more effectively, and that constituents can federally vote for a party even if the party lacks an MP in the voter’s riding.
Like any system, PR has its drawbacks. It is said to produce indecisive outcomes and a lack of accountable decision-making. Arguably, the latter is reduced through MMP’s electing of a local MP. While true that PR does not often produce a strong majority government for consistent and timely legislation, one should recognise that it conversely means parties are encouraged to compromise on divisive policy issues. This means we’re less likely to see jarring policy swings as we oscillate between two false-majority governments pushing forth contrary agendas. Critically, it also means every vote truly does count, and can be put towards a choice more authentic to our personal values: with the increased voter turnout this brings, we work towards the more representative democracy that we deserve.