Why we (still) need a new election system

Our current election system, first past the post, is widely recognized as being severely flawed. As the only requirement to be elected is to have more votes than any other candidate in the riding, the system leads to many MPs being elected who are in no way representative of the views of the majority of their constituents. Analysis of the 2015 election data shows that seats were won with a range of 28.6 to 81.8 per cent of the riding vote. Note that only 48 of 338 seats were won with 60 per cent or more (these MPs can truly say that they represent the views of their riding), while a majority, 206, of the 338 ridings were won with less than 50 per cent of the riding vote. This, together with ridings in which there is a near certain expectation of a specific candidate winning prior to the election, often leads many to justifiably feel that their vote is meaningless and/or wasted. The combination of MPs elected with less than 50 per cent of the riding vote, and low-population ridings, results in a high tendency for seat distributions vastly divergent from the popular vote, with false majorities being a key risk. Since the First World War, we have had 18 majority federal governments in Canada. In only four of those did the winning party have greater than 50 per cent of the popular vote. In fact, with first past the post, it is possible for a party to win a majority government while another party has a larger share of the popular vote. These scenarios are completely undemocratic. A voting system that consistently creates these scenarios should not be in use in any jurisdiction that truly values democracy. So, if we accept that first past the post needs to be replaced, why another new election system? Why not choose from the existing alternative systems? Although some proponents of electoral reform would accept any replacement of first-past-the-post, many have strong feelings for a specific alternative and perhaps even stronger feelings against others. The recent impasse to find consensus within the House Electoral Reform Committee exemplified this, with some members eagerly advocating for Single Transferable Vote and adamantly opposing Mixed-Member Proportional, while others were the exact opposite. This lack of consensus will inevitably prevent electoral reform from ever happening and will leave us forever with the status quo. If consensus is not possible for any of the existing alternatives, a new system must come forward that all proponents of electoral reform are willing to move their support to. Single Vote Proportional may be that system. It was designed on top of two fundamental principles: simplicity and fairness. It achieves proportional representation without requiring any changes to the current ballot or voting process (just changes to the counting and seat-awarding processes). It is without any of the “critical flaws” that proponents of the various current alternatives find in the others. These flaws include ballot complexity, system complexity, lack of proportionality, lack of inclusivity, low local representation, and party-assigned MPs. Single Vote Proportional starts with exactly what we have today: voters placing a single vote on a simple ballot to select their preferred candidate in their own riding. Each vote is then considered in three tallies: for the candidate at the riding level, for the party at the regional level, and for the party for balancing seats. To win the riding seat, a candidate must secure at least 60 per cent of the riding vote, ensuring that they truly represent the views of the constituents. If no candidate receives the 60 per cent minimum, then the seat will be assigned as a regional seat. Ninety per cent of the seats in the House of Commons will be either riding seats or regional seats. The remaining 10 per cent of the seats are balancing seats, which are awarded by considering all votes not consumed in electing a riding seat MP or regional seat MP. Regional and balancing seats are assigned in descending order of percentage of riding vote; none are assigned by political parties. In a true democracy, every vote must count, and no party should end up with the absolute power of a majority government without a majority of the popular vote. Rick Ingram is the author of the Single Vote Proportional election system. The Hill Times

Why we (still) need a new election system

The current system is flawed and there’s no consensus on an existing alternative. Why not something new? Single Vote Proportional may be a winner.

Ranked preferential ballot is the way to go if we want to elect a government supported by majority of Canadians

Liberals could unseat Tories in competitive South Surrey-White Rock byelection

Feds should take another look at electoral reform

Ranked preferential ballot is the way to go if we want to elect a government supported by majority of Canadians

A missed chance to rein in security threats in space leaves us all vulnerable

Conservatives already have a climate plan

There’s history in the walls of 24 Sussex Drive

Charities can’t keep helping others if no one will help them

Canada can still be a force of global peace and prosperity if Trudeau changes his foreign policy

Proportional representation like participation medals: everyone feels good, no one wins

House Electoral Reform Committee did fail us, so it’s time for government to decide

P.E.I. case shows referendums not ‘decisive tool’ to gauge opinion on electoral reform: Cullen

Electoral reform plebiscite results anything but clear

Errors of PR as electoral reform and merits of Canada’s electoral system

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Why we (still) need a new election system

The current system is flawed and there’s no consensus on an existing alternative. Why not something new? Single Vote Proportional may be a winner.

Get The Policy Briefings Newsletter