Electoral Reform: Is Canada Ready for a New Voting System?

Introduction

The debate over electoral reform in Canada has ebbed and flowed over the decades, occasionally rising to prominence during election campaigns before receding from public discourse. Despite a 2015 campaign promise that "this will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system," Canada continues to use this traditional method for electing its representatives. Yet the discussion persists, with advocates arguing that our current system fails to accurately reflect the will of voters, while defenders maintain that it provides stability and clear local representation.

As regional political divisions deepen and voter satisfaction with our democratic institutions wavers, the question resurfaces with renewed urgency: Is Canada ready for a new voting system? This analysis examines the current debate, the alternatives being proposed, and what electoral reform might mean for Canadian democracy and governance.

Understanding First-Past-the-Post

Canada's current electoral system, known as first-past-the-post (FPTP), is straightforward in principle: the candidate who receives the most votes in a riding wins, regardless of whether they secure a majority. This winner-takes-all approach has several notable characteristics:

Strengths of the Current System

• Simplicity: Voters cast a single vote for their preferred candidate, making the ballot easy to understand and the counting process straightforward.
• Local Representation: Each riding elects a single representative who is directly accountable to constituents in that geographical area.
• Decisive Outcomes: FPTP tends to produce majority governments, even when the winning party receives less than 50% of the popular vote, potentially leading to more stable and decisive governance.
• Historical Familiarity: Canadians have used this system since Confederation, creating institutional and cultural familiarity.

Criticisms and Limitations

• Disproportional Results: Perhaps the most significant criticism is that seat allocation often doesn't reflect the popular vote. In the 2021 federal election, the Liberal Party formed government with 32.6% of the popular vote but secured 47% of the seats.
• "Wasted" Votes: Votes for losing candidates or surplus votes for winning candidates (beyond what was needed to win) don't contribute to representation, potentially discouraging participation.
• Strategic Voting: Many voters feel compelled to vote against their least preferred option rather than for their genuine preference.
• Regional Distortions: Parties can be shut out of regions where they have significant but geographically dispersed support.

These limitations have fueled calls for alternative voting systems that might better reflect the diverse political landscape of modern Canada.

Alternative Electoral Systems

Several alternative voting systems have been proposed for Canada, each with its own advantages and drawbacks:

Proportional Representation (PR)

Proportional representation systems aim to allocate seats in proportion to the votes each party receives. There are several variants:

• Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP): Used in countries like Germany and New Zealand, this system combines local riding representatives with list seats to achieve overall proportionality. Voters typically cast two votes: one for a local candidate and one for a party.
• Single Transferable Vote (STV): This system uses ranked ballots in multi-member districts. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and a quota system determines winners. This system is used in Ireland and for some Australian Senate elections.
• List PR: Parties present lists of candidates, and seats are allocated in proportion to each party's vote share. This can be done at a national level (as in the Netherlands) or in regional districts.

Ranked Ballot Systems

Alternative voting systems that maintain single-member districts but allow voters to rank candidates include:

• Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)/Alternative Vote: Voters rank candidates by preference. If no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their supporters' second choices are distributed. This process continues until someone achieves a majority. This system is used in Australian House of Representatives elections.

The Case for Reform

Advocates for electoral reform in Canada present several compelling arguments:

More Accurate Representation

Proportional systems would ensure that a party's seat count more closely reflects its share of the popular vote. This could give voice to significant but geographically dispersed political perspectives that are currently underrepresented in Parliament.

Increased Voter Engagement

When voters feel their preferences truly count, regardless of where they live, they may be more motivated to participate in elections. This could help address declining voter turnout, which has hovered around 60-67% in recent federal elections.

Reduced Strategic Voting

Alternative systems, especially those using ranked ballots, would allow voters to express their true preferences without feeling they are "wasting" their vote or inadvertently helping a candidate they strongly oppose.

More Collaborative Politics

Proportional systems typically result in coalition or minority governments, which may foster more cross-party cooperation and compromise. This could lead to policies with broader support across the political spectrum.

Regional Representation

Proportional systems could ensure that parties have representatives from regions where they receive significant support but not enough to win individual ridings under FPTP. This might help address regional alienation and ensure all regions have voices in governing parties.

The Case for Caution

Defenders of the current system or those cautious about reform raise important counterpoints:

Governance Stability

FPTP tends to produce majority governments that can implement their agendas without constant negotiation. Some argue this leads to more effective governance and clearer accountability for policy outcomes.

Local Representation

Some proportional systems might weaken the direct link between representatives and specific geographical constituencies, which many Canadians value. This concern can be addressed by mixed systems that maintain local representatives while adding proportional elements.

Complexity

More complex voting systems might confuse some voters or make ballot counting less transparent. However, international experience suggests voters can adapt to new systems, especially with proper education campaigns.

Potential for Fragmentation

Proportional systems might encourage the proliferation of smaller, single-issue parties, potentially giving disproportionate influence to fringe political movements. Most countries address this with minimum thresholds (typically 3-5% of the vote) for parliamentary representation.

Past Reform Attempts

Canada has seen several noteworthy attempts at electoral reform:

Federal Level

The most prominent recent effort came after the 2015 election when the Liberal government established a Special Committee on Electoral Reform. Despite extensive consultations and a committee report recommending a referendum on proportional representation, the government ultimately abandoned the initiative in 2017, citing a lack of consensus.

Provincial Experiences

Several provinces have explored electoral reform:

• British Columbia: Held referendums on STV in 2005 (57.7% support, just short of the 60% threshold) and 2009 (39.1% support), and on MMP in 2018 (61.3% opposed).
• Ontario: A 2007 referendum on MMP saw 63.1% of voters reject the proposal.
• Prince Edward Island: A 2016 plebiscite showed majority support for MMP, but low turnout led to a second referendum in 2019, which rejected change.
• Quebec: The CAQ government promised electoral reform but later postponed plans indefinitely.

These experiences demonstrate both public interest in electoral reform and the challenges of building sufficient consensus for change.

International Perspectives

Looking abroad provides valuable insights on electoral systems in practice:

Success Stories

New Zealand transitioned from FPTP to MMP following referendums in 1992 and 1993. The change has led to more proportional outcomes and greater diversity in Parliament, with minimal governance instability. A 2011 referendum confirmed public satisfaction with the new system.

Cautionary Tales

Italy experienced frequent government turnover under its highly proportional system, leading to several reforms aimed at improving stability while maintaining representativeness.

Comparable Countries

Among comparable Westminster parliamentary democracies:

• The UK continues to use FPTP but has seen growing calls for reform.
• Australia uses IRV for its House of Representatives and STV for its Senate.
• New Zealand adopted MMP as mentioned above.
• Scotland and Wales use MMP for their devolved parliaments.

Public Opinion and Political Positions

Current Canadian perspectives on electoral reform vary:

Voters

Polling suggests mixed public views. A 2023 Angus Reid survey found 47% of Canadians supported changing the electoral system, while 27% preferred the status quo and 26% were unsure. Support for change tends to be higher among those whose preferred parties are disadvantaged by FPTP.

Political Parties

Party positions generally align with their electoral interests:

• The Liberal Party's 2015 commitment to electoral reform was abandoned, though some MPs continue to support it.
• The Conservative Party generally favors maintaining FPTP or requiring a referendum for any change.
• The NDP strongly supports proportional representation.
• The Bloc Québécois has supported proportional elements while emphasizing Quebec's distinct status.
• The Green Party advocates for proportional representation, which would likely increase their parliamentary presence.

Potential Paths Forward

If Canada were to pursue electoral reform, several approaches might be considered:

Citizen Assemblies

A randomly selected but representative group of citizens could study options and make recommendations, as was done in British Columbia and Ontario. This approach can enhance democratic legitimacy and reduce partisan influence.

Incremental Changes

Rather than wholesale system replacement, incremental reforms might include:

• Ranked ballots within the current riding structure
• Adding a limited number of proportional seats while maintaining most local ridings
• Testing reforms at the municipal level before broader implementation

Referendum Requirements

Many argue that changing fundamental electoral rules should require direct public approval through a referendum. Design matters here: the question format, approval threshold, and information campaign can significantly influence outcomes.

Conclusion

The question of whether Canada is ready for electoral reform has no simple answer. Our current system has provided stability and familiar governance for generations, but its limitations become increasingly apparent in our diverse and regionally complex political landscape.

What seems clear is that any successful reform effort would need to:

• Balance proportionality with local representation
• Maintain the simplicity that voters value
• Emerge from a process that builds broad legitimacy across partisan lines
• Address regional concerns and Canada's federal nature

While the path to electoral reform in Canada has proven challenging, the conversation continues to evolve. As our political landscape changes and new generations of voters engage with these questions, Canada may yet find the consensus needed to modernize its democratic institutions in ways that enhance representation while preserving effective governance.

The debate itself serves an important purpose, prompting Canadians to reflect on what we value in our democracy and how our institutions might better serve those values in the 21st century. In that sense, the ongoing discussion about electoral reform—regardless of its immediate outcome—strengthens our democratic culture by encouraging active civic engagement with fundamental questions about representation and governance.