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 …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 …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