|
|
 |
|
Feature: |
|
|
| You are here: Home > Features > Electoral Reform Movement in Canada |
The Canadian electoral system in detail
‘First
Past the Post’ system: how it functions, its benefits and
drawbacks
In Canada, candidates are elected under the single member
plurality electoral system (SMP). Like many other former British
colonies, Canada inherited the single member plurality system
from Great Britain. The history of the system precedes Confederation;
it was first used to elect members to the Nova Scotia legislature
in 1758 (Source: Law
Reform Commission of Canada,).
There are three main features that distinguish single member plurality
from other types of electoral systems in the world:
- Candidates represent a specific geographic area, called
a riding district;
- There is only one member elected in each riding district;
- Votes are counted on a district-by-district basis for the
individual candidates, not for political parties; and,
- In order to win a riding, a candidate does not need to receive
a clear majority (considered 50 percent plus one) of the
votes. Instead, the candidate only needs to receive a relative majority
(also called a plurality majority), meaning that s/he received
more votes than any other candidate in the riding district.
Under the single member plurality system, a candidate can
win a riding even though the majority of voters voted against
him.
The single member plurality system is often referred to as the ‘first
past the post’ system simply because, in a sense, it can
be characterized as a race.
Positive and Negative Features of the First Past the Post Electoral
System
There is both support for, and criticism against, the first past
the post system. Arguments on both sides stem primarily from
three key features:
- It tends to produce majority governments. Canada has had
38 federal elections since Confederation; only eight have
resulted in minority governments.
- It tends to over-reward major parties, and under-reward
smaller parties. Under SMP it is all too common for major
parties to receive a higher percentage of seats than their
share of the popular vote, while smaller parties receive
fewer seats. For example, in the June 2004 federal election,
the Green Party received 4.3 percent of the popular vote,
but did not win any seats. Similarly, the NDP received
15.69 percent of the popular vote, but won only 19 out
of 308 (approximately six percent) of House of Commons
seats. By contrast, despite being reduced to a minority
government, the Liberals still received a higher percentage
of seats than their share of the popular vote (the party
received 36.7 percent of the popular vote, but won nearly
44 percent of the seats). The trend becomes even clearer
when looking at the 2000 federal election, where 40.8 of
the popular vote was enough to give the Liberals over 55
percent of the seats, and a clear parliamentary majority.
It is very common for a party (or candidate) to win a majority
of seats without winning a majority of votes. Between 1900 and
2004, Canadians elected 21 majority governments at the federal
level, but only ten actually received over 50 percent of the
popular vote.
Benefits of the First Past the Post Electoral System
While the first past the post system has been greatly criticized
in recent years, it does have several advantages over other types
of systems. These include:
- It tends to produce stable governments.
- It tends to produce a strong opposition party (both the
winning party and the main opposition party often receive
a higher number of seats than their share of the popular
vote).
- It allows voters to support a local candidate who represents
the geographical area in which they live
- It allows individuals who are not members of a political
party to run as independents.
- It is easy for voters to understand how the system works.
- It tends to provide a clear-cut contest between two major
parties.
Still, advocates of electoral reform in Canada have pointed out
several flaws with the first past the post system. These include:
- It is possible for the political party that received the
second highest number of votes to win the election. This
happened in the 1957 and 1979 federal elections, and in
the 1996 BC election.
- It is very difficult for smaller parties with a national
base – such as the NDP or the Green Party – to
win seats.
- On the other hand, smaller parties with a strong regional
base may get a “seat bonus,” winning more seats
than their corresponding share of the popular vote. This
party may claim to ‘speak’ for that region,
even though the majority of people in the region may not
have voted for the party.
- Voters who support smaller political parties may become
discouraged with the political process. For example, those
who voted for the Green Party in the 2004 federal election
may feel their votes were wasted, since the Green Party
did not win any seats.
- Women and minorities are under-represented in the legislatures
of many countries with first past the post electoral systems
Why Did Canada Choose the Single Member Plurality Electoral System?
Historically speaking, there were several reasons why the Fathers
of Confederation chose to implement the single member plurality
electoral system for Canadian federal elections:
- The single member plurality system was already being used
in several colonial legislatures, such as Nova Scotia.
- In the 1800s, there were only two main political parties
operating at the federal level. Under SMP, one of these
parties was guaranteed to win a majority government.
- The need for a stable majority government was considered
more important than it is today. One important reason:
a clear-cut majority made it possible for the government
to pursue major policy objectives, such as building a national
railroad.
Today, advocates of electoral reform believe Canadian society has
changed significantly – to the point where the drawbacks
of the single member plurality system outweigh its advantages.
|
