An electoral reform is a change in the electoral system of a country in order to improve how public desires are expressed in an election. An electoral reform is necessary for Canada’s democracy in the 21st century since the current system does not accurately represent people’s choice. By analyzing the pros and cons from the different recommendations on proportional representation (PR), I will prove how this new electoral system is a better option for Canadians over the current one, first-past-the-post (FPTP).
Background
For almost 150 years, Canada has used the FPTP system to elect their governmental representatives. FPTP is a simple and common method widely used across the world in countries, such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada. “The leader of the party that secures the largest number of seats in the House of Commons… becomes the prime minister and forms the government.” In FPTP, a single-member plurality electoral system, the winning candidate is the individual who garnered most votes, but not necessarily the majority, in a district. From time to time, electoral reform has been part of the Liberal party platform; however, once they overthrow the opposition and are safely positioned in office, the Liberal government gives it a second thought and decides not to change the system, as recently shown by the current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau. During the committee’s open mic hearing, many people argued that FPTP is an efficient and simple structure for both, voters and administrators. “If the system isn’t broken, don’t fix it,” said a participant. At the same time, however, this system has been highly criticized for leading “waste votes” and directing “strategic voting,” as well as creating “false majority” governments. The Parliamentary electoral reform seeks to solve this issues by proposing a new electoral system that follows under these five principles: effectiveness and legitimacy; engagement; accessibility and inclusiveness; integrity; and local representation. 1. Effectiveness and legitimacy A main issue in the current system brought up in the Committee is related to effectiveness and legitimacy. A new electoral system must be legitimate regarding how votes are translated into seats in the House of Commons, it should also effectively ensure that votes are “fairly translated” into seats in a way that “reduces distortion” and “strengthens the link between voter and the elected representative.” Under the FPTP system, citizens vote for only one candidate and the one that acquires the highest votes in total gets elected - they do not necessarily need to win 50 per cent of the votes, just more than the other candidate. This process can lead to a false majority government. For example, in the 2015 elections, the Liberal party received 40 per cent of the votes, the Conservative party came in second place with 32 per cent of the votes, and in third place, the New Democratic Party (NDP) acquired 20 per cent. Yes, the Liberal party received the most single votes making them a “majority government;” nevertheless, 60 per cent of the voting population did not elect them, meaning the new government is a false majority. At the same time, first-past-the-post is a great system when only two candidates are running in the same riding; however, if there is more than two, this system distorts the votes-seat ratio. The 2008 election is a great example, the Conservative party won with 37.6 per cent, followed by the Conservatives with 26.2 per cent, the NDP with 18.2 per cent and the Bloq Quebecois (BQ) with 10 per cent of the votes. …show more content…
The Commission suggested the MMP system to ensure fairer representation, greater equality votes, an effective legislature and government. The Commission’s recommendations were released in 2007 with 20 initiatives to improve the province’s system, but it never held a referendum on proportional representation system.
On its website, the organization Fair Vote Canada, pointed out the unfairness of the FPTP system. A Canadian political party that earns 39 per cent of the votes obtains 100 per cent of the power. FPTP is a system where the winner takes it all, silencing smaller parties like the Greens. On the contrary, with PR, no vote is wasted, which means smaller parties have a change to be better represented in the House of Commons as there is a higher probability of representational
Background
For almost 150 years, Canada has used the FPTP system to elect their governmental representatives. FPTP is a simple and common method widely used across the world in countries, such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada. “The leader of the party that secures the largest number of seats in the House of Commons… becomes the prime minister and forms the government.” In FPTP, a single-member plurality electoral system, the winning candidate is the individual who garnered most votes, but not necessarily the majority, in a district. From time to time, electoral reform has been part of the Liberal party platform; however, once they overthrow the opposition and are safely positioned in office, the Liberal government gives it a second thought and decides not to change the system, as recently shown by the current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau. During the committee’s open mic hearing, many people argued that FPTP is an efficient and simple structure for both, voters and administrators. “If the system isn’t broken, don’t fix it,” said a participant. At the same time, however, this system has been highly criticized for leading “waste votes” and directing “strategic voting,” as well as creating “false majority” governments. The Parliamentary electoral reform seeks to solve this issues by proposing a new electoral system that follows under these five principles: effectiveness and legitimacy; engagement; accessibility and inclusiveness; integrity; and local representation. 1. Effectiveness and legitimacy A main issue in the current system brought up in the Committee is related to effectiveness and legitimacy. A new electoral system must be legitimate regarding how votes are translated into seats in the House of Commons, it should also effectively ensure that votes are “fairly translated” into seats in a way that “reduces distortion” and “strengthens the link between voter and the elected representative.” Under the FPTP system, citizens vote for only one candidate and the one that acquires the highest votes in total gets elected - they do not necessarily need to win 50 per cent of the votes, just more than the other candidate. This process can lead to a false majority government. For example, in the 2015 elections, the Liberal party received 40 per cent of the votes, the Conservative party came in second place with 32 per cent of the votes, and in third place, the New Democratic Party (NDP) acquired 20 per cent. Yes, the Liberal party received the most single votes making them a “majority government;” nevertheless, 60 per cent of the voting population did not elect them, meaning the new government is a false majority. At the same time, first-past-the-post is a great system when only two candidates are running in the same riding; however, if there is more than two, this system distorts the votes-seat ratio. The 2008 election is a great example, the Conservative party won with 37.6 per cent, followed by the Conservatives with 26.2 per cent, the NDP with 18.2 per cent and the Bloq Quebecois (BQ) with 10 per cent of the votes. …show more content…
The Commission suggested the MMP system to ensure fairer representation, greater equality votes, an effective legislature and government. The Commission’s recommendations were released in 2007 with 20 initiatives to improve the province’s system, but it never held a referendum on proportional representation system.
On its website, the organization Fair Vote Canada, pointed out the unfairness of the FPTP system. A Canadian political party that earns 39 per cent of the votes obtains 100 per cent of the power. FPTP is a system where the winner takes it all, silencing smaller parties like the Greens. On the contrary, with PR, no vote is wasted, which means smaller parties have a change to be better represented in the House of Commons as there is a higher probability of representational