It is hardly a surprise that no Canadian government with a majority supports electoral reform. Why would they? It could make them losers. That is why losers such as the New Democratic Party are such enthusiastic supporters. It is why a Liberal Party that ended up in third place in the last federal election is willing to consider electoral reform. And it is why the Green Party and other fringe parties always favour electoral reform.
But if either of the main opposition parties gets a majority on October 19, electoral reform will drop to a very low priority on its agenda. Given the high probability of a minority government though, the country could be into the thick of arguments about electoral reform for the next two years. The losers in that argument could be the people who will have to use the new voting systems.
Hate it or honour it, our first-past-the-post voting system has withstood the tests of time and constant attempts at reform. It is hardly because it is the preferred system under all circumstances but it is the very simplicity of the system that earns it honours. Whether an elected position has 2 or 20 people contesting for the position, we can all follow the voting process, the count and the decision of a winner as the person with the largest number of votes.
But there is no question that first-past-the-post creates anomalies. Combined with distribution of votes, a party can win a majority of seats in parliament with as few as 35 per cent of the votes. That does leave the losers annoyed. They see it as unfair.
But what is fair? The New Democrats and Greens want some form of proportional representation in parliament. The Greens sometimes get close to five per cent of the vote but only one seat in the House of Commons. They want five per cent of the seats.
To get that though, we would need to have some form of proportional representation. It would mean the parties would appoint people to parliament according to their share of the national vote. And if we did that in Canada, you could probably forget about ever having majority governments.
It also means that we would never again have Member of Parliament, we can call our own. They would represent their parties, not the voters. Recognizing this, the NDP opt for mixed-member proportional representation. This means an elected MP would have a vast area to represent but have to sit with appointees in parliament.
But all this argument can be held after the election. The only further comment necessary is that British Columbia and Ontario have both held referendums on the issue. So far it is First-Past-the-Post – 2; Electoral Reform – 0.
-30-
Copyright 2015 © Peter Lowry
Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]