Electoral Reform

Considering the 2008 Election Results: Canada’s Electoral System Needs to be Replaced

Harold Jansen — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:53:11 -0600

I’ve been thinking over the election results since Tuesday night and I keep coming back to one thing: Canada’s electoral system needs to be replaced. I need to point out first of all that I’m not an electoral system ideologue. I don’t think there’s one abstract, theoretically derived system that works best in all countries and at all times. Canada currently has a single member plurality electoral system (often misleadingly labelled the “first past the post” system). This system works pretty well in countries where there are only two strong parties that are competitive with one in all regions of the country. That was the case in Canada from 1867 to about 1921. It hasn’t been the case for a long time and it’s a big reason why our electoral system needs reforming.

The reality is that Canada has a multi-party system and that fact isn’t about to change anytime soon. There was a lot of talk in this election about the vote-splitting on the left, which reminded me a lot of the discussions about vote-splitting on the right in the 1990s. I’ve seen some discussion about how we need to reduce the number of parties on the left, perhaps by having the Green party disappear. However, there are reasons why people started, joined and voted for the Green party rather than the NDP, just as New Democrats don’t want to be Liberals. I know plenty of former Canadian Alliance members who chafe at the principles they’ve had to see watered down as part of the Conservative party of Canada. Rather than reducing the number of parties to fit the requirements of an archaic electoral system, wouldn’t it make more sense to adopt a system that recognizes the diversity of political views that Canadians already hold.

This multiplicity of views means that the translation of votes into seats under our system is pretty erratic. Every election, I ask my students to predict how many seats each party will get in the election. I was struck by how poorly they performed this time. The reason is not that they’re not very bright, but that there’s a degree of randomness in the translation of votes to seats. As an example, I’ll pick the surprise in my own province. Conservative Rahim Jaffer lost his seat in Edmonton Strathcona. Hearing that, you might expect that he had fallen out of favour with voters. In fact, he received almost exactly the same proportion of the vote on Tuesday night (41.6%) as he did in 2006 (41.7%). What changed was the way all of the other parties’ votes divided (or didn’t). There are many examples like that to be found in the election results. It also helps to explain why small shifts in the overall popular vote can have a significant impact on seat totals, such as we saw with the Conservatives and the NDP on Tuesday night.

The other significant reality of Canadian politics is the regional disparity in support for the parties. We see this most evident with the Bloc Quebecois, which only runs candidates in Quebec. But we also see it with other parties. Because only one party can take a seat, it means that for supporters of a minority view, elections are an exercise in frustration. Ask a Liberal supporter in Alberta how satisfying it is to vote; ask a Conservative supporter in downtown Toronto the same thing. The problem with our electoral system is that it exacerbates these regional differences. Six out of every ten voters in Quebec did not vote for the BQ on Tuesday night, but they took two-thirds of the seats. About a third of Albertans don’t vote Conservative; you’d never know it looking at the election results. A different electoral system is not going to suddenly revive Liberal fortunes in western Canada, nor is it going to help voters in urban centres fall in love with the Conservatives. But there are systems out there that will more accurately reflect the true reality of party support at the regional level.

So, what’s the alternative? Well, I’d suggest a form of proportional representation, and if you want my specific recommendation, it would be a mixed-member proportional electoral system. This system was pioneered in Germany and has increasingly become the consensus choice of experts on electoral reform. MMP is seen to provide the “best of both worlds,” because it combines some of the best elements of the SMP system with the proportional overall outcomes of proportional representation. Under the system, voters elect an MP to represent their district, exactly as we do now. Voters would also get to cast a second ballot for the party they support (which may or may not be the same as the party of their preferred candidate). What we do then is give parties additional MPs from party lists so that their total number of MPs equals the number they should get based on their percentage of the vote.

How would the results on Tuesday night have been different under an MMP system. The first table has the actual results on election night.

Province	Conservative	Liberal	BQ	NDP	Green	Independent
N.L.	0	6		1	0	0
PEI	1	3			0	0
NS	3	5		2	0	1
NB	6	3		1	0	0
QUE	10	13	50	1	0	1
ONT	51	38		17	0	0
MAN	9	1		4	0	0
SASK	13	1			0	0
ALTA	27	0		1	0	0
BC	22	5		9	0	0
NORTH	1	1		1	0	0
TOTAL	143	76	50	37	0	2

The following table shows the hypothetical results of the election under an MMP system. If you want the assumptions and technical details I used in making the calculations, you can consult the fine print at the end of this post.

Province	Conservative	Liberal	BQ	NDP	Green	Independent
N.L.	1	4		2	0	0
PEI	2	2		0	0	0
NS	3	3		3	1	1
NB	4	2		3	1	0
QUE	16	18	29	9	2	1
ONT	42	36		19	9	0
MAN	7	3		3	1	0
SASK	8	5		3	1	0
ALTA	19	3		4	2	0
BC	16	7		10	3	0
NORTH	1	1		1	0	0
TOTAL	119	81	29	57	20	2

The result is a House of Commons that more closely corresponds to how Canadians actually voted on election night. The biggest change comes for the BQ; no other party in Canada benefits more from the distortions of our SMP system than them. The seats they would lose in Quebec would be divided among the other parties, but the Conservatives and NDP would especially benefit in that province. Overall, the NDP would be a net beneficiary of the system with better representation across Canada, but especially in Quebec. The Green Party would have elected 20 MPs from every province except Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island. Those gains obviously come at the Conservatives’ expense as the party now gets the typical SMP leading party bonus. For most of Canadian history, though, the Conservatives have been the second place party and the electoral system has not been especially kind to them. The other key thing about this for the two major parties is that they are decidedly national, with MPs from every region of the country.

There are many criticisms of proportional representation systems, but I’d argue that most of them either do not hold up well to critical scrutiny or are problems we already face in Canada. One common criticism is that we would never see majority governments under PR/MMP and that all governments would be minorities or coalitions. How is that different than what we have right now? A lot of people are arguing that as long as the Bloc is getting 40-50 seats, a majority government is almost unattainable. Furthermore, if Canadians are divided over the direction of their government, why should we artificially choose one of the parties to be able to direct the government in its entirety? Another related criticism is that we would see more frequent elections under a PR system. Again, I can scarcely see how we would do worse than how we’re doing now. We have had three elections in four and a half years and will likely see another one in two-three years. This last election was triggered because Stephen Harper and the Conservatives thought they could get a majority if they called it when they did. Under a PR system that incentive would be gone. The Conservatives would have gained around four seats over last time, hardly worth bringing down the government for. The flaw with all of these arguments is that they equate minority or coalition governments and more frequent elections with effective government. The only really good study of this found this not to be the case. Another frequent criticism is that extremist or anti-system parties can basically use their position to get what they want in order to keep a government in power. Again, that’s what we have now. I would define a party dedicated to breaking up Canada as an extremist party and our system right now gives the Bloc Quebecois inordinate influence in the House of Commons.

In other words, we’re getting all of the supposed disadvantages of PR without any of its advantages, such as higher voter turnout (although there are many causes of turnout decline that are unrelated to the electoral system) and greater representation of women. Canada’s society and party system would more appropriate be served by a proportional system. I’d argue that’s been the case since 1921 and the situation is only worsening.

What are the prospects of electoral reform? Probably not great, since the parties who control our choice of electoral system all have a vested interest in the system. The only hope for a Conservative majority is through the assistance of the electoral system. For the last six elections, the BQ has been the biggest beneficiary of the system. Historically, no party has been helped by the system more than the Liberals. They’ve governed most of the time since 1921, but have been doing so on an increasingly small proportion of the popular vote, as Richard Johnston has noted (PDF link). All of these parties have a vested interest in keeping the system how it is. No party has been hurt more by the electoral system than the NDP, but the party has been incredibly ambivalent in its commitment to reform. No NDP provincial government has ever introduced electoral reform. When the Liberals have relied on the NDP in a minority government situation, the NDP has never demanded movement towards electoral reform as its price for its support. Why? When the party’s leader says, “I’m Jack Layton and I’m running for Prime Minister,” he knows that the only way that’s ever going to happen is with a big helping hand from the electoral system.

It’s going to take citizen education, action and pressure to accomplish change. And it’s going to be a long and uphill struggle. But our political system is showing the cracks of an electoral system that no longer serves its needs.

The fine print: My MMP projections are based on the assumption that roughly half of the seats in each province are elected in single member districts and their breakdown is the same as what we saw on election night. I decided that in the case of the two independents, that they would have had enough appeal to have been elected even under the larger districts in an MMP system. I also assume that there is no “split ticket” voting; in other words, the voter would support the same party as the candidate they supported. Obviously, the assumption is also that people would vote the same under the PR system as they voted under SMP, which is likely true for the vast majority of people, but almost certainly not true for all people. We lack any data to assume or project other behaviour. The overall results treat each province as a district (I combined the North into one district) and allocates the seats using a largest remainders formula and a Droop quota.

Canada’s Electoral System: Introduction to Federal and Provincial Elections

Brian Doody — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:51:45 -0700

While the origins of some elements of Canada’s electoral system can be traced back to medieval England, others have been added more recently and reflect changes in the way that election campaigns have evolved, as well as an ongoing concern that elections be kept free and fair. This article gives an overview of Canada’s federal and provincial electoral systems, including their basic framework and operation, their historical development, as well as key rules governing the conduct of political parties, election candidates, and the media.

Basic Framework of the Canadian Electoral System

Federalism, single-member constituencies, and first-past-the-post voting

History and Development of the Canadian Electoral System

Some elements of Canada’s system can be traced back nearly 800 years

Operation of the Canadian Electoral System

Calling an election, election officers, selection of candidates, and voter lists

Election Regulations for Parties, Candidates, and the Media

Legal rules governing the conduct of key election actors

Sources and Links to More Information

Lists of article sources and links to more on this topic

This article was written by Brian Doody. It has since been altered by Jay Makarenko.

Basic Framework of the Canadian Electoral System

Federalism, single-member constituencies, and first-past-the-post voting

What is an Electoral System?

An electoral system is the process by which voters’ preferences are translated into seats in a legislature. Voters express their preference (that is, their vote) by casting a ballot; ballots are then counted to determine which representatives are elected to the respective legislative body. In this way, voters in a society choose the representatives who have the power to make that society’s laws and to govern it on the voters’ behalf.

Electoral systems differ widely between political jurisdictions. Canada’s electoral system is characterized by several qualities: federalism, single-member constituencies, and a first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system.

Federalism and the Electoral System

Canada is a federation, meaning that power and authority is divided between two levels of government: the federal (or national) level and the provincial (or regional) level. Moreover, Canada also has territories, which are regional governments similar to provinces. The key difference, however, is that territories are created by the federal government, whereas the provinces are constitutionally autonomous entities.

Each of these different levels of government has its own elected legislature. At the federal level, the House of Commons is the elected federal legislature, while the Senate is an appointed body. Each province and territory also has its own elected legislature. The purpose of Canada’s electoral system is to elect representatives to these different legislative bodies. This is done through the holding of regular (and separate) elections, at both the federal and provincial/territorial levels.

Single-Member Constituencies

Under Canada’s electoral system, the country is divided into geographically based electoral districts or ridings (also called constituencies). At the federal level, the entire country is divided into electoral districts for elections to the House of Commons. Individual provinces and territories are also divided into different electoral districts for election to their respective legislatures.

Voters in each district elect a single representative, who is authorized to represent them in their legislature. This is why Canada’s electoral system is referred to a “single-member constituency” system, as only one representative (or member of the legislature) is elected for each electoral district (or constituency). This can be contrasted with other electoral systems, where voters have an opportunity to elect multiple representatives for a given electoral district.

During a general election for either the federal House of Commons or a provincial/territorial legislature, elections are held simultaneously in each electoral district. The outcome of those district elections, in turn, determines who will form the government. Here it is important to note the role of political parties. In federal elections, and most provincial/territorial elections, candidates running in a district usually belong to competing political parties. Which party forms the government upon the outcome of an election depends on how well these political parties fare across all of the electoral districts. Generally in Canada, the political party that elects the most number of representatives forms the government. Typically, the leading party forms either a majority or minority government.

In the 2000 federal election, for example, the country consisted of 301 electoral districts. Of those districts, the Liberal Party won 172, the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance won 66, the Bloc Québécois won 38, the New Democratic Party won 13, and the Progressive Conservative Party took 12. By winning the most electoral districts, and electing the most representatives, the Liberal Party was able to form the government after the election.

For more information on how governments are formed in Canada:

First-Past-the-Post System

In addition to being organized into single-member constituencies, Canada’s electoral system is also characterized by a first-past-the-post voting system (FPTP). Under this system, the candidate with the most votes in a particular electoral district wins the election.

Take, for example, the riding of Kitchener-Conestoga in the 2007 Ontario provincial election. In that riding’s election, 33,547 ballots were cast. Of that number, the Progressive Conservative candidate won 14,382 votes, the Liberal candidate won 13,350 votes, and the New Democratic candidate 3,937 votes. Under the first-past-the-post voting system, the Progressive Conservative candidate became the district’s representative, by virtue of winning the most votes relative to the other candidates.

It is important to note that winning an electoral district does not necessarily mean that a representative is widely supported. In the above example of Kitchener-Conestoga, the winning Progressive Conservative candidate only won 14,382 votes out of a possible 33,547. This represented only 42 percent of the vote, meaning that 6 out of 10 voters cast a ballot for someone other than the winning candidate.

Reforming Canada’s Electoral System

Several provinces and the federal government have recently studied changes to Canada’s electoral system (although, as of October 2007, no official chances have been made):

In 2004, the federally-appointed Law Commission of Canada recommended the adoption of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) for federal elections. MMP combines FPTP elections in single-member districts with proportional representation (PR) for political parties, whose members are elected from lists.
In British Columbia, a Citizens’ Assembly – selected randomly from the voters’ list – recommended the adoption of the Single Transferable Vote (STV). STV allows preferential voting in multi-member districts, with voters assigning a number to each candidate in the order of their choice. In a referendum held in May 2005, STV was chosen by 57.7 percent of voters, 2.3 percent short of the 60 percent threshold required for it to become law.
In Prince Edward Island, MMP received only 36 percent of votes in a referendum held in November 2005, despite being recommended by two independent commissions. An independent commission in New Brunswick in 2005 recommended the adoption of MMP, which the provincial premier had promised to submit to voters in a referendum; however, the election of a new government in 2006 seems to have put that referendum on hold indefinitely.
In Quebec, despite early optimism in 2004 surrounding the introduction of a draft electoral law, MMP seemed to suffer a major setback when a legislative committee in 2006 held that there was no consensus to proceed with MMP. A Citizens’ Committee, consisting of eight voters selected randomly who sat with the legislative committee, contradicted this view; the Committee’s report found a broad consensus in favour of MMP.
In Ontario, a Citizens’ Assembly based on the British Columbia model recommended the adoption of MMP, but this proposal, too, won the support of only 36 percent of voters in a referendum held in October 2007, far short of the 60 percent required for its adoption.

History and Development of the Canadian Electoral System

Some elements of Canada’s system can be traced back nearly 800 years

Magna Carta and the Principle of Free Elections

Although the Canadian electoral system is governed by laws passed by the federal Parliament and the legislature of each province, it is based on a practice that began nearly 800 years ago in England. In 1215, the Magna Carta stated that the King no longer had the right to summon his own advisors to sit in what is now called the House of Commons. Instead, he had to issue what today are called writs of election, and to summon to the House only those people who, according to the returned writs, won the most votes in elections held in each district. That principle of free elections first established in the Magna Carta was brought by the British to Canada, where federal and provincial elections today are still organized around the “dropping” and return of separate writs of election for each district.

Evolution of the Right to Vote

The right to vote in elections was historically limited to a minority. In the nineteenth century, the right to vote in Canada was based largely on property qualifications; it was only by the early twentieth century that it was gradually expanded to include most of the adult population. In 1919, women were conferred with the right to vote in all federal elections in Canada. By 1940 the suffrage movement had won the right for women to vote in all provincial elections as well. Exceptions to the right to vote based on racial origin were removed from federal electoral legislation in 1948. In 1960, Aboriginal Canadians were given the right to vote in federal elections and by 1969 could also vote in all provincial and territorial elections.

In 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in section 3, recognized the right of all Canadian citizens “to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.” As a consequence of court challenges to electoral laws under section 3 of the Charter and the actions of legislatures, few restrictions on the right to vote in Canada remain today.

Drawing of Electoral Boundaries

The drawing of electoral boundaries used to be the prerogative of Parliament and the legislatures. Today, that task is largely conferred on boundaries commissions that are independent of Parliament and the legislatures. Commissioners hold public hearings and then draw the boundaries based on the principle that the population between ridings should be relatively similar (the allowable variances between populations in different ridings is established by Parliament and the legislatures).

Operation of the Canadian Electoral System

Calling an election, election officers, and selection of candidates, and voter lists

Calling of an Election and the Writ Period

An election in Canada begins officially when the Prime Minister (or a provincial premier) asks the Governor General (or the Lieutenant Governor, in the case of a province) to dissolve Parliament or the legislature and to authorize the emission of writs of election. This is the beginning of the “writ period” of the election campaign, when the laws that govern the conduct of an election start to be applied by the election officers. This period begins the date that the writ is “dropped” and does not end officially until the writs are returned along with the names of the candidates who won the most votes on “polling day.” The Canada Elections Act states that federal election campaigns must be a minimum of 36 days but does not state a maximum period. The length of a writ period in the provinces ranges from province to province.

Chief Electoral Officers and Returning Officer

All federal and provincial elections in Canada are organized and administered by a non-partisan agency headed by a Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) or similarly-named official whose appointment is usually approved by all of the parties in Parliament or the legislature. One of the CEO’s first tasks during the election period involves sending the writs of election to the Returning Officer responsible for the administration of the election in each riding. Each returning officer must then open an office in his/her electoral district for the duration of the writ period, and hire employees who will carry out various tasks – tasks that can include updating the voters’ list to counting the ballots on polling day.

Each writ of election is addressed to the returning officer and sets out three dates: the deadline for the filing of the candidates’ nomination papers with the returning officer (nomination day), the date of the election (polling day), and the deadline for the return of the writ to the Chief Electoral Officer (which is to be certified on the back by the returning officer with the name of the candidate who won the most votes).

Selection and Nomination of Candidates

Regardless of whether a candidate is selected to represent a political party or chooses to run as an independent candidate, or whether a party’s candidate is selected before or after the writ period begins, all candidates must file their nomination papers at the office of the returning officer no later than the nomination day as set out in the writ. Although political parties frequently select their candidates before the writ is dropped, the expenses incurred during the pre-writ period are generally not counted as election expenses and are usually not included in any reimbursement of campaign expenses.

The information that must be provided with a nomination form varies but generally includes the prospective candidate’s name and contact information, picture identification (Quebec) and – in the case of a candidate representing a registered political party – a letter or other document authorized by the party leader confirming the candidate’s selection by the party (in federal elections and in every province except British Columbia, Alberta, and Manitoba).

Voter Lists and Enumeration

To ensure a successful election period, a great deal of work also needs to be done during the pre-writ period – and on an ongoing basis between elections – by political parties, candidates, and officials in the Chief Electoral Officer’s office. Elections Canada (the federal election agency) and all provincial election agencies (except in Saskatchewan and Manitoba) maintain or have started to develop permanent voters’ lists. For much of the twentieth century, voters’ lists were compiled by carrying out an enumeration of voters in each district – essentially a door-to-door verification of the eligible voters in each household. Although Elections Canada held its last enumeration in 1997 – and updates its permanent list using tax and other data – many provinces still use a whole or partial enumeration to update their voters’ lists.

Most provinces’ electoral laws now allow the Chief Electoral Officer to hold an enumeration of voters before or after the dropping of the writs. Even when a permanent voters’ list is relied upon without any enumeration, election officials must still check for accuracy to ensure that voters who have changed their residence are accounted for, and for voters who have moved to new residential buildings. During the writ period, for example, election officials must visit hospitals and extended-care facilities to compare voters’ lists against lists of residents provided by a person in charge of each facility.

Election Regulations for Parties, Candidates, and the Media

Legal rules governing the conduct of key election actors

Registration of a Political Party

At both the federal and provincial levels, Chief Electoral Officers maintain registries of political parties. Although parties are not obliged to register with the CEO, registration is the only way a party can qualify for subsidies and reimbursements under the law. Normally each registry contains basic contact information such as the names of senior officials and the party’s head office.

It is the parties’ responsibility to ensure this information is kept up to date, such as when there is a change in the party’s leadership or a merger of two registered parties. A party might be removed or suspended from the registry, for example, if it does not comply with its obligations to file detailed reports on campaign and other financing matters. In some provinces and at the federal level, parties are also required to register their local riding associations.

Parties previously had to run a minimum number of candidates in a general election in order to be eligible to remain in the registry. However, in 2003 the Supreme Court of Canada struck down this provision as unconstitutional under section 3 of the Charter, on the grounds that the right to vote includes “the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role” in an election, in a way that allows “disadvantaged” parties to nominate candidates.

Regulation of Candidate and Party Finance

All federal and provincial elections in Canada today are governed by legislation that regulates, to varying degrees, the contributions and expenditures of candidates and political parties – before, during and after election campaigns. The tools for regulating political donations range from the less coercive – such as reporting requirements for the names of donors, the amounts of contributions, or the amounts and types of expenditures. Other rules restrict the liberty of candidates, parties and their supporters – such as limits on contributions or expenditures, or both. Legislation at the federal level (and provincially in Ontario and Manitoba) requires that both the parties’ nomination candidates in each district and the parties’ leadership contestants register with the Chief Electoral Officer before the candidates can accept donations.

Every candidate for office in a federal or provincial election must have an Official Agent (or similarly-named official), who is the only person authorized to accept contributions and to authorize expenditures on behalf of the candidate during the writ period. The maximum penalties for violating this rule are harsh and include the loss of the right to vote, or to be a candidate in a future election.

Government Subsidies for Election Expenses

Federal and provincial legislation provides for varying degrees of subsidies and refunds of campaign expenses for candidates who receive a minimum percentage of the vote in a campaign, usually around 15 per cent. Some provinces such as Quebec provide a separate subsidy to parties based on their share of the vote. The most generous subsidies to parties are paid at the federal level, where registered parties each year receive $1.75 (in 2004 dollars, indexed to inflation) for each vote given to each of their candidates in the most recent general election.

In order to be eligible for this subsidy, the Canada Elections Act requires a minimum of either two percent of the vote Canada-wide or five percent of the vote in the ridings where the party endorsed candidates, a threshold that some smaller registered parties have recently challenged in court. The smaller parties won their case in the Ontario Superior Court in October 2006, but the application of the judge’s decision was suspended in March 2007 while the case is appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal heard the case in June 2007 (the decision is forthcoming at the time of this article’s publication).

Broadcasting and Other Media Restrictions

Federal and provincial electoral legislation places limits on the rights of broadcasting and print media to publish the results of public-opinion polls in the period immediately prior to polling day and, in the case of federal elections, the election results from time zones where the polls close earlier than the rest of the country. The rise of Internet-based media makes these rules increasingly difficult to enforce, however. Furthermore, the Canada Elections Act and some provincial statutes place spending limits on political advertising by third parties during the writ period. These limits have been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, most recently in 2004, as a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under the Charter.

Prosecutions for alleged violations under federal and provincial electoral laws are normally carried out by an official who is independent of the government, whose activities are usually managed in close association with the Chief Electoral Officer. Offences under the various election acts normally carry a statute of limitations, meaning they cannot be prosecuted after a certain number of years have passed.

Sources and Links to More Information

Lists of article sources and links to more on this topic

Sources Used for this Article

Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/E-2.01/
[British Columbia] Election Act, S.B.C. c. 106: http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/E/96106_00.htm
[Alberta] Election Act, S.A. c. E-1: http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Documents/ACTS/E01.CFM
[Saskatchewan] Election Act, 1996, SS. 1996, c. E-6.01: http://www.canlii.org/sk/laws/sta/e-6.01/index.html
[Manitoba] Elections Act, C.C.S.M. c. E30: http://www.canlii.org/mb/laws/sta/e-30/index.html
[Ontario] Election Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-6: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90e06_e.htm
[Quebec] Election Act, L.R.Q. c. E-3.3 : http://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/en/pdf/publications/loi_elec_en.pdf
[New Brunswick] Elections Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, s. E-3: http://www.canlii.org/nb/laws/sta/e-3/20070117/whole.html
[Prince Edward Island] Elections Act, S.P.E.I. c. E-1.1: http://www.gov.pe.ca/law/statutes/pdf/e-01_1.pdf
[Nova Scotia] Elections Act, R.S.N.S. c. 140: http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/statutes/election.htm
[Newfoundland and Labrador] Election Act, S.N.L. 1992, c. E-3: http://www.hoa.gov.nl.ca/hoa/statutes/E03-1.htm
Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General) [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912, 2003 SCC 37.
Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, 2004 SCC 33.
Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Saskatchewan) [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158.
Canada. Chief Electoral Officer. 1997. A History of the Vote in Canada. Ottawa. Beauregard Printers.
Canada. Elections Canada. 2003. Compendium of Election Administration in Canada. 2003 Edition. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.
Canada. Elections Canada. 2003. Compendium of Election Administration in Canada: A Comparative Overview. 2003 Edition. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.

Links to More Information

Electoral Reform and Multi Member Plurality

Greg Farries — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:03:26 -0600

Ontario MMP referendum

Harold Jansen — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:49:54 -0600

Matthew Soberg Shugart, one of my favorite electoral systems specialists, and certainly my favorite electoral systems blogger (it's a small club) has written a great blog post about the referendum and MMP in Ontario. Shugart makes the point that many have made: Ontario is not a particularly likely candidate for electoral reform because it hasn't experienced many of the distortions that other jurisdictions using the plurality system have experienced, particularly the "wrong winner" phenomenon, where the second place paty in votes wins the most seats. I would also note that Ontario usually elects robust oppositions, so lopsided majorities (another trigger for electoral reform) aren't present, either.

It should be an interesting evening....

Doug Bailie From Fair Vote Canada Talks about Electoral Reform

Greg Farries — Mon, 01 Sep 2003 00:00:00 -0600

Doug Bailie is one of the organizers behind Fair Vote Canada, an organization looking to reform Canada’s electoral system to adopt a system of proportional representation.

Mapleleafweb.com: Tell me a little about Fair Vote Canada.

Doug Bailie: Fair Vote Canada was started last summer when a few of us who had been discussing proportional representation online began to work towards a formal organization. We started up a website and began sending out an e-mail newsletter (which now reaches about 275 people).

Now, we’re looking forward to our first national meeting which will be in Ottawa, March 30-31, and that is where we will hammer out a formal statement of purpose and establish the organization’s structure.

Mapleleafweb.com: Besides some scribbling by academics, there hasn’t been a strong citizen-based movement to adopt PR in decades. Why do you think the time is right now?

Doug Bailie: I think that now is the right time because of the way the opposition has been fragmented since 1993. That fragmentation has made the distortions of our winner-take-all system more obvious. I think there’s a greater degree of frustration among people who feel the pressure to vote strategically. Plus, it has over-emphasized the regional aspects of Canadian politics — giving the Liberals overwhelming dominance of Ontario while they are under-represented in the West and vice-versa for the Alliance.

All of this makes it easier to get people’s attention when you talk about voting system reform.

Mapleleafweb.com: The regionalization you speak of is an important feature of Canada’s party system since 1993. How would proportional representation help that?

Doug Bailie: Our current electoral system tends to give more seats to parties which have their votes concentrated in a particular region and fewer seats to those parties which have their votes more thinly spread across the country. So, in both the 1993 and 1997 federal elections, the Tories and the Reform party got about the same number of votes, but Reform had several times more seats than the Tories because Reform voters tended to be concentrated in the West.

Proportional representation would not turn that situation upside down — that is, over-representing parties with broad national support while under-representing parties with regional support — it would simply give everyone their due representation. So, PR is not a solution for regional tension in Canada, but it would not, I believe, exacerbate regional tensions the way the current system does.

Mapleleafweb.com: One criticism of PR is that it leads to political instability. People hear “PR” and they think of countries with unstable party systems, such as Italy. How do you answer that criticism?

Doug Bailie: There are dozens of democracies in the world which use some form of proportional representation. Opponents of PR always bring up Italy or Israel, which have both had problems with governmental stability, and use that as evidence that PR is flawed. But the experience of Italy and Israel does not reflect that of most PR countries. The truth is there is a broad range of experience ranging from the instability of Italy and Israel to the kind of stability we’ve seen in Germany, where government leaders tend to stay in office for ten or fifteen years at a time.

The reason there is such a range of experience is because electoral systems are just one ingredient in a country’s political soup. It’s an important ingredient, but it doesn’t make or break the governmental stability of a country.

That said, there is certainly a lot of room for criticizing the particular PR systems which are used in some countries. And it makes sense for those of us in Canada to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of other countries’ electoral systems.

Mapleleafweb.com: This brings up an important point. There are many kinds of proportional representation. One of the characteristics of the electoral reform movement has been the infighting over the preferred model of PR. Do you think that weakens the cause of PR?

Doug Bailie: It would be hard to argue that it didn’t. But my experience has been that the vast majority of PR supporters in Canada are focused on the goal of adopting a more proportional system and they are willing to compromise on their preferred model, if they have one at all.

Perhaps the more serious split is between the supporters of PR and the supporters of the Alternative Vote, which is a majoritarian system. Both groups want to change the electoral system, but they have significantly different criticisms of the current system and significantly different solutions.

Mapleleafweb.com: What other difficulties do you anticipate in the electoral reform campaign?

Doug Bailie: I think the strength of electoral reform is that it is not a left-vs- right issue. So you can bring together, as we are in Fair Vote Canada, people from across the political spectrum. But the flip side of that is that electoral reform tends to be a government-vs.-opposition issue. And how do you make such a major change in the political system without the support of the government?

I often come across people who think PR is a great idea but it is futile to talk about it because the government — no matter which party forms the government of the day — will always block it. While there’s a lot of truth to that, it is not absolutely true. Other countries have managed to change their electoral systems now and then. New Zealand is perhaps the most recent and most relevant example for Canadians to look to. And finally, I guess I believe that citizens can force change in the political system, in spite of entrenched interests, if they band together in sufficient numbers.

Mapleleafweb.com: It’s clear that the Liberals benefit from the current system and don’t have much appetite for change. But what about the opposition parties? Is there much will among them for electoral reform?

Doug Bailie: I think it’s building. For one thing the attempt to “unite the right” turned out to be much more difficult than many Reform-Alliance supporters expected. While that process is continuing, I think both Alliance and Tory members are more likely to be critical of the electoral system now than they were a few years ago.

Support for voting system reform, and proportional representation in particular, has been growing within the NDP. PR is now official party policy and it was included in last year’s election platform. Also, the party introduced a motion in the House for debate on electoral reform last week, which used up one of their opportunities to control the subject of debate in the House — so I think that indicated that the issue is taking on increasing significance for the NDP party and caucus.

There is even some support in the Bloc Quebecois.

I think as the sense that Canada is devolving into a quasi-one-party state, opposition parties will become more and more interested in voting system reform.

Mapleleafweb.com: If people are interested in learning more about Fair Vote Canada or your Ottawa conference, where can they get more information?

Doug Bailie: They can visit our website http://www.fairvotecanada.org/. Information on the conference, the list of speakers, registration and the agenda are all available online. You can also find more general information about who we are and what we hope to achieve.

Any inquiries can be directed to info@fairvotecanada.org or by calling 416-410-4034.