electoral reform?

Electoral Reform?Electoral Reform?

CLN4UCLN4U

Our current systemOur current system

““First-the-post”First-the-post” The candidate with the most votes in a riding gets the seat, The candidate with the most votes in a riding gets the seat,

and the party with the most seats forms the governmentand the party with the most seats forms the government Not all that common (used in UK and some of her former Not all that common (used in UK and some of her former

colonies – Canada, USA, India)colonies – Canada, USA, India) Other former colonies have abandoned the old FPP system Other former colonies have abandoned the old FPP system

in favour of a system of in favour of a system of Proportional RepresentationProportional Representation (ex: (ex: New Zealand in 1993), which is the norm throughout most New Zealand in 1993), which is the norm throughout most of Europe and the Americasof Europe and the Americas

What’s wrong with our current What’s wrong with our current system?system?

Ex: Ex: In the 2004 election the Conservatives In the 2004 election the Conservatives won about 93% of the seats (13 out of 14) in won about 93% of the seats (13 out of 14) in Saskatchewan, even though they only got 42% Saskatchewan, even though they only got 42% of the voteof the vote


Should the % of seats in parliament reflect the % of Should the % of seats in parliament reflect the % of the vote each party received?the vote each party received?

Ex: 2011 Election resultsEx: 2011 Election results

PartyParty % of popular % of popular votevote

% of seats in % of seats in HouseHouse

ConservativeConservative 39.6%39.6% 53.9%53.9%

NDPNDP 30.6%30.6% 33.4%33.4%

LiberalLiberal 18.9%18.9% 11%11%

BlocBloc 6%6% 1.2%1.2%

GreenGreen 3.9%3.9% 0.3%0.3%


Another example: the Bloc QuebecoisAnother example: the Bloc Quebecois

YearYear % of popular % of popular votevote

% of seats in % of seats in househouse

20042004 12.4%12.4% 17.5%17.5%

20062006 10.5%10.5% 16.5%16.5%

20082008 9.9%9.9% 15.9%15.9%

• In 2008, the NDP got 18.2% of the vote, but only 12% of the seats, while the Greens got 6.8% of the vote, but no seats


Ex: 1998 Quebec ElectionEx: 1998 Quebec Election

PartyParty # of Seats# of Seats % of Seats% of Seats % of Vote% of Vote

Parti QuebecoisParti Quebecois 7676 60.860.8 42.8742.87

Liberal PartyLiberal Party 4848 34.834.8 43.5543.55

Action-DemocratiqueAction-Democratique 11 0.80.8 11.8111.81

OtherOther 00 00 1.771.77


Ex: 1987 New Brunswick ElectionEx: 1987 New Brunswick Election


Liberal PartyLiberal Party 5858 100100 60.3960.39

Progressive ConservativeProgressive Conservative 00 00 28.5928.59

NDPNDP 00 00 10.5510.55

IndependentIndependent 00 00 0.470.47


Ex: 1993 Federal ElectionEx: 1993 Federal Election


Liberal Party of CanadaLiberal Party of Canada 177177 60.060.0 41.241.2

Bloc QuebecoisBloc Quebecois 5454 18.318.3 13.5213.52

Reform PartyReform Party 5252 17.617.6 18.6918.69

New Democratic PartyNew Democratic Party 99 3.13.1 6.886.88

Progressive ConservativeProgressive Conservative 22 0.70.7 16.0416.04

OtherOther 11 0.30.3 3.673.67


Concerns: “Tactical Voting”Concerns: “Tactical Voting” Voters have an incentive to vote for one of the Voters have an incentive to vote for one of the

two candidates they predict are most likely to two candidates they predict are most likely to win, even if they would prefer another of the win, even if they would prefer another of the candidates to win, because a vote for any other candidates to win, because a vote for any other candidate is wastedcandidate is wasted

““All votes for anyone other than the second All votes for anyone other than the second place are votes for the winner”place are votes for the winner”

Ex: 2000 US ElectionEx: 2000 US Election


Concerns: voter turnoutConcerns: voter turnout A vote for a losing candidate (or any votes for the A vote for a losing candidate (or any votes for the

winner beyond what is necessary to win) is pointlesswinner beyond what is necessary to win) is pointless Ex: Anyone who voted Conservative in Quebec, Ex: Anyone who voted Conservative in Quebec,

Liberal in Alberta, NDP in Saskatchewan, or Green Liberal in Alberta, NDP in Saskatchewan, or Green anywhere other than Saanich-Gulf Islands, is not anywhere other than Saanich-Gulf Islands, is not representedrepresented

Perhaps not surprisingly, countries with the FPP Perhaps not surprisingly, countries with the FPP system typically have the lowest voter turnoutsystem typically have the lowest voter turnout

The Alternative?The Alternative?

Proportional RepresentationProportional Representation Basically, % of parliament = % of voteBasically, % of parliament = % of vote Used in 81 countriesUsed in 81 countries

Several variationsSeveral variations Mixed Member ProportionalMixed Member Proportional Single Transferrable VoteSingle Transferrable Vote

Mixed-Member ProportionalMixed-Member Proportional

Scotland, Wales, Germany, and New ZealandScotland, Wales, Germany, and New Zealand Voters vote for their individual local representatives Voters vote for their individual local representatives

the way we dothe way we do Also cast a separate second vote to elect “top-up” Also cast a separate second vote to elect “top-up”

regional MPsregional MPs In the “open list” version recommended by the Law In the “open list” version recommended by the Law

Commission of Canada, the top regional vote-getters from Commission of Canada, the top regional vote-getters from underrepresented parties fill top-up seats until those underrepresented parties fill top-up seats until those parties’ share of seats reflects their share of the popular parties’ share of seats reflects their share of the popular votevote

Single Transferable VoteSingle Transferable Vote Ireland, Iceland, India (upper house), and some states in Ireland, Iceland, India (upper house), and some states in

AustraliaAustralia Voters in combined local districts get to elect five, six, or Voters in combined local districts get to elect five, six, or

seven representatives instead of just one, ranking individual seven representatives instead of just one, ranking individual local politicians from all parties by order of preferencelocal politicians from all parties by order of preference

If your favourite candidate doesn’t have enough votes to get If your favourite candidate doesn’t have enough votes to get elected, your vote is transferred to your next-favourite elected, your vote is transferred to your next-favourite candidate, and so on.candidate, and so on.

If your favourite candidate has more votes than he or she If your favourite candidate has more votes than he or she needs, your vote is similarly transferred to your next-favourite needs, your vote is similarly transferred to your next-favourite candidate, and so on, until it ends up where it’s most needed to candidate, and so on, until it ends up where it’s most needed to get you the group of representatives you wantget you the group of representatives you want

Single Transferable VoteSingle Transferable Vote

In a 2005 referendum, 58% of British In a 2005 referendum, 58% of British Columbia voters voted “Yes” to STV for Columbia voters voted “Yes” to STV for provincial electionsprovincial elections

The BC gov’t decided that 60% was required The BC gov’t decided that 60% was required for legitimacyfor legitimacy Gov’t had just won 97% of the seats with 57% of Gov’t had just won 97% of the seats with 57% of

the vote the vote

What do you think?What do you think?

Pros/Cons of a switch to Proportional Pros/Cons of a switch to Proportional Representation?Representation?

Should be move towards a Proportional Should be move towards a Proportional system?system?

Which is better, MMP or STV?Which is better, MMP or STV?

electoral reform?

Documents