By Jon Roe
Proportional Representation
In 1987, a New Brunswick government won 100 per cent of the legislature’s seats with just 57 per cent of the vote.
This gross misrepresentation was allowed to happen under the first-past-the-post voting system, where the party that wins the most votes captures a riding completely. Consequently, votes that are not cast for the winning party are effectively discarded.
This system is used in Canada, the U.S. and parts of the U.K., but many mature democracies, over 75, have moved towards a system of proportional representation. There are multiple types of PR ranging from single transferable vote, where you rank candidates in order of preference, to mixed member, a system that mixes FPTP with PR, and many in between. All, however, translate the number of votes into seats more accurately than FPTP.
The obvious benefit of a PR system is that citizens set a government that reflects what they asked for.
In a federal context, the 2006 federal election is a common example used in support of changing the system towards PR.
According to Fair Vote Canada, more than 650,000 Canadians voted for the Green Party, but no Green MP was elected. Meanwhile, due to concentrated support in Atlantic Canada, 500,000 Liberal voters elected 20 MPs.
Despite the regional benefits that FPTP provides– linking a candidate directly to a riding– it can create problems when parties create policies that benefit regions where their support is concentrated and ignore areas where voters traditionally support other parties.
As defined by Merriam-Webster.com, “a democracy is a government by the people; especially: rule of the majority.” Stephen Harper and his Conservatives may be able to win a majority government this election– a majority government in Canada means a majority of seats, not to be confused with a majority of votes– with under 40 per cent of the popular vote. At the most basic level, this goes against the definition of democracy, as the majority of voting Canadians, 60 per cent, would have voted for other parties– these parties should form the government.
This would require a coalition– a government made up of two or more parties– a system used in many mature democracies such as Germany and Sweden. While many critics argue this leads to ineffective governments, these countries have led the way in environmental initiatives, universal health care and social programs while maintaining healthy economies.
It is true minority and coalition governments can take longer to achieve their agenda, but it could be argued this is a positive, as more discussion and compromise is needed, ultimately leading to a solution that better reflects the will of all citizens. While majority governments are able to plough ahead, if the bulk of voters have not chosen them, and by extension their agenda, then they are not acting within the best interests of Canadians.
Another objection to a PR system is that it can be hard to understand. The different systems of PR vary– from ranking parties in order of preference to both choosing regional candidates and ranking a party’s list of candidates. Despite the difficulty, the systems are often intuitive and if not, can be taught easily through public education systems. And, while this may be considered elitist, if someone isn’t able (or willing) to understand the voting system, perhaps that’s indicative of their understanding of Canada’s political system as a whole.
If Canadians are looking for a government that reflects the votes they cast, they should join the chorus of voices calling for a citizen’s assembly to look making proportional representation work for Canada.
Katy Anderson
First-past-the-post
Recently, there have been calls for a switch to a proportional representation electoral system in Canada– calls that will likely grow louder if the Greens capture the 10 per cent of the vote that polls have shown is out there for them in this election but don’t win any seats. But though PR systems sometimes show a higher voter turnout than non-PR ones, effective government is often sacrificed for higher fringe party representation that skews the national debate.
There is a heavy emphasis put on the voter turnout argument for the pro-PR crowd. But PR is not the panacea people assume it is. New Zealand switched to a mixed member proportional system after the 1993 election, where 85.2 per cent of voters turned out. The 1996 election saw participation rise to 88.3 per cent and then subsequently drop for the next two to 77 per cent in the 2002 election. The most recent election in 2005 saw 80.9 per cent participation, still lower than the turnout before the change.
This may also have to do with the complexity of the New Zealand system– a common problem for PR systems and a huge turnoff for potential voters. New Zealand operates a two-tiered system and voters get two votes: one for the upper tier, operating on the proportional system, and one for the lower tier, operating using the plurality system. The upper tier is composed of representatives from parties receiving at least five per cent of the vote (or two or more lower tier representatives) and the lower tier is for the local electorate representative. The two votes do not need to be for the same party and sometimes complications arise after the votes have been tallied when parties are left with overhang seats (more than they are proportionally entitled to) or underhang seats (less than they are entitled to). This is much more complicated than Canada’s current system of voting.
PR systems also invite the participation and inclusion of frightening fringe parties into government. In Germany, there’s been a rise in neo-Nazism represented in the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), which has won seats in state elections thanks to proportional representation. Though the party did win enough votes to earn the seats in the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state election, every other party participating condemned the NPD. In Italy, proportional representation has seen regionalist parties, advocating for more regional autonomy, form the country’s governing coalition. These situations lead to the kind of vote pandering which sees regions in a country gaining benefits at the expense of the country as a whole.
Canada’s first-past-the-post system is not perfect. But when presented with a clear mandate– in Canada, a majority government– at least parties are free to follow their agenda. The splintering of parties along ideological lines like in PR leads to petty bickering like that in this election among the current crop of mainly left-wing parties in Canada, the Liberals, the Greens and the NDP and by the split in the ’90s between the Conservatives and the Reform Party. Every political party has a spectrum of opinions, but splitting them along this spectrum sacrifices effective government work for minor arguments along ideological lines.
Britain’s government commissioned a report into their electoral system in 2007 and examined the possibility of a proportional representation system. Beyond finding that PR does not increase voter turnout, the report also found that “coalition or minority government is prevalent where proportional systems are used and this can be viewed as either representing a greater diversity of input to policy-making, or a drag on effective government.”
Canada’s first-past-the-post system is increasingly called into question, but the alternatives are hardly preferable when voter turnout will not increase and when we will be faced with more ineffective minority governments.
Jon Roe