Proportional Representation

by Apathy is Boring — October 11, 2006

According to the voting results in Canadian elections between 1935 and 2004, only on four occasions were there “true majorities” won by the party that formed the government. These were 1940, 1949, 1958, and 1984. All the other elections produced “phoney majorities”.

Introduction

Voting is one of the most important characteristics of a democracy. The voting process enables citizens to elect representatives who will make decisions on their behalf. The electoral system is a formula that translates votes into seats in the legislature.

There are numerous electoral systems in the world; Canada has opted for a “single member plurality system” also known as “first past the post.” The candidate with the most votes in one riding (electoral district) is elected in the House of Commons; there is no need for a candidate to obtain more than 50% of the vote. There have been numerous debates over the last years about adopting a new electoral system because of numerous problems like: low voter turnout and a discrepancy between percentage of votes and seats in the House of Commons. The most talked about system is Proportional Representation (PR).

Definitions

Proportional representation is an electoral system designed to take into account all the votes and count them towards the overall results of a body or bodies of representatives. This system creates a close match between the percentage of votes a party receives and the number of seats they obtain. There are several variations of the proportional representation system

• List Proportional Representation System. This system is used in multiple winner elections (most times elections to Parliament.) In this case parties make a list of candidates to be elected and the seats are allocated according to the percentage of votes obtained by the party. Some examples of countries using this system are Israel and Austria.
• Single Transferable Vote. This electoral system is designed to minimize wasted ballots and ensure proportional representation and directing votes toward candidates rather than party lists. In a STV system there are more than one seat per constituency. Votes are allocated according to the voters choice, first to the most preferred candidate and then votes unneeded or unused are transferred after candidates are elected or eliminated. This system is being currently used in Australia and Ireland, among others.
• Mixed Member Proportional System. This form of PR is intended to reflect the percentage of votes obtained with the number of seats in the House of Representatives. In this case some members are elected in their electoral districts and some are elected on the basis of percentage of votes obtained by each party. This system is currently being used in Germany.
• Single Member Plurality The plurality voting system (also known as first past the post) is a voting system used to elect a single winner in a given election.
• History
• The Canadian electoral system dates back to the 19th century when it encouraged competition between two parties and insured stability. “Fringe parties have been arguing for decades that the current electoral system is unfair. Under the riding system, a political party can win a large percentage of the popular vote, but only a small number of seats.”

Where we’re at:

In Canada the voting system promotes real competition among candidates and political parties. The single plurality system forces voters to vote strategically. A good example would be an NDP supporter in a riding where the battle is between Conservatives and Liberals. Voting NDP will solve nothing in that riding so she will vote Liberal to prevent the Conservative from getting her vote. If we look closely at Canada, our electoral system (first past the post) is designed to produce majority governments. It does not translate the percentage of votes into seats in the House of Commons. There have been instances when a party has had less than 50% of the vote and won 93% of the seats (Liberals in Saskatchewan had 42% of the popular vote yet they won 13 of the 14 seats in the province.) This is one of the shortcomings of this single plurality system used in Canada.

Reforms 

• There have been numerous debates all over Canada when it comes to reforming the electoral system in Canada: British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, and the federal government have all discussed it.  The most active province is British Columbia. In 2004 the Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform recommended to change the voting system. The proposed solution is BC STV. There was a referendum held in May 2005 and required a 60% double majority to pass. The overall support received was 58% and showed that the voters are excited about this idea. The premier of BC Gordon Campbell promised to hold a new referendum on this reform again in November 2005.   http://www.fairvotingbc.com/ 
• In Quebec, the Liberal government of Jean Charest promised to pass a bill and change the electoral system to a MMPS where, of the 125 seats in the province, 75 would be elected by the first past the post system and the rest to be selected from a list of regional candidates to ensure proportionality.
• Ontario has created a Citizens’ Assembly to look into the matter of reforming the electoral system. A referendum will be held before any changes to the existing system are made.
• The Federal government announced in the 2004 Throne Speech that it will look into this matter as well. No measures have been taken so far but there is a lot of support for reform. The Law Commission of Canada issued a Report recommending the federal electoral system be changed to a mixed member system that allows for more proportional representation of parties in the House of Commons.

Party Perspectives

Each Party has their own agenda when it comes to reform the electoral system.

• Liberal Party: the Liberal Party of Canada has been advocating reforms to the electoral system at all levels. The Liberal governments in BC and Quebec as well as the federal liberals have been proponents for change.
• NDP leader Jack Layton has been arguing for a change in the electoral system that would allow his party to elect more members in the House of Commons. During the 2006 campaign he declared  that “The NDP proposals include electoral reform that would see proportional representation added to the current system of constituency-based representation.” 
• http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/07/elxn-layton-accountability.html
• Conservative Party: “A Conservative Government will consider changes to electoral systems, including proportional representation, the single transferable ballot, fixed election dates, and the use of referendums.”
• http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2692/41607
• Bloc Quebecois: also supports reforms to the electoral system as long as they respect the wishes of Quebecers and Canadians but makes no reference to PR.
• The Green Party: supports Electoral Reform that would enable it to have seats in the House of Commons; “To stem the tide of broken electoral promises, of politicians crossing the floor and to increase voter participation, the Green Party calls for a system of proportional representation” 
• http://www.greenparty.ca/index.php~module=announce&ANN_id=155&ANN_user_op=view.html
• Marijuana Party: supports an electoral system where proportional representation would allow it more publicity.
• Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada has not expressed a position on PR.
• Canadian Action Party: “As the "first past of the post" method of electing members of parliament does not result in a House which truly reflects the views of the electorate, the Canadian Action Party is committed to the principle of proportional representation which would result in a Commons more in tune with the real wishes of voters.”
• http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/PartyInfo/pdfs/Policies.pdf
• Christian Heritage Party of Canada does not have a position on PR
• Communist Party of Canada: supports PR as a means to improving democracy in Canada .
• First Peoples National Party of Canada: fully supports PR.
• Libertarian Party of Canada: has no position on PR.
• Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada: supports an electoral reform that would include PR.
• Progressive Canadian Party has expressed no position on this topic. 
• Western Block Party has not expressed a position regarding PR.

Pros and Cons

Proportional Representation would address voting percentages and representation in the House of Commons, though critics of PR argue that it will lead to political instability. No party will be able to be elected with a majority and minority governments tend to have short life spans, prompting frequent elections. On the other hand minority governments will lead to more cooperation among political parties to avoid plunging the country in political elections. A PR system tends to result in more citizen engagement in politics because every vote counts. On the other side there is the argument that post election coalitions will undermine the involvement of voters because they will not see the reforms promised. Countries dominated by a two-party system have historically been more stable politically than those where political alliances were predominated (ex. Canada and the US two party system, Italy and Israel coalition governments.)    http://www.theinterim.com/interimplus/2004/Sept04Interimplus.pdf

Conclusion

The need for proportional representation is not a quest for power by fringe parties. It is a recognition that a diversity of ideas presented at the highest levels of government is more likely to enhance the capabilities of Canada to meet the challenges the world is presenting to us. This was one of the conclusions of the Lortie Commission on Electoral reform in 1991. At the same time, percentage of votes obtained by one party is not reflected in the number of seats in the House of Commons or Legislature.


Sidebars

How Does PR Work?
In its simplest format if a party receives 40% of the popular vote, that party receives approximately 40% of the seats (not 50% or 60%). If another party wins 20% of the vote, that party gains 20% of the seats (not 10% or 0%). In other words, the parties’ representation reflects their support at the ballot box as per the popular vote received.
http://www.theinterim.com/interimplus/2004/Sept04Interimplus.pdf

PRO PR
Proportional Representation is fairer. First past the post often results in a party without majority support being able to dominate parliament, as happened in Canada in 2004. Minority parties, e.g. Greens, which win 6% or so of the vote all over the country fail to win a single seat. PR means that every vote will count; therefore more people will vote because everyone is being represented. In addition, there is greater representation of marginalized groups, such as women and racial minorities, in political office.

CON PR
PR leads to weaker government. Typically no one party gains a majority of the popular vote, so coalition governments have to be formed, often between two or more parties. This tends to produce unstable governments and frequent elections. Governments are unable to put a clear, positive legislative agenda in place over several years or act decisively in time of crisis. PR results in a political Tower of Babel with fragmented ridings and all sorts of little parties unnecessarily entering into the political equation. Perpetual minority parties like the Libertarian Party, Canada Action Party and the Green Party hope PR will give them the balance of power between the two major parties, as indeed it often does in countries that use PR. This would give undue power to groups that do not currently enjoy significant support among the masses of voters, but do have a limited appeal among a sector of voters. The defenders of the traditional system contend that voters are better served by focusing on the realistic policy options articulated by the major parties.
http://www.theinterim.com/interimplus/2004/Sept04Interimplus.pdf