Proportional Representation and why Canada’s archaic SMP system should be replaced

Jeremy Giesbrecht

300090805

POL 2101 – A00

Joseph Román

Due: November 27th, 2018

 1

Elections and the ability for a citizen to vote for who they believe should be their next

representative is a distinct characteristic of a democracy. It gives the citizens of a country the

opportunity to look at a group of candidates and determine who will run their country the best.

How those elections are structured is also a very integral part. Elections must be free, fair and

properly reflect the decisions made by the citizens. In Canada, we enjoy a representative

democracy, in this system Canada is divided into 338 federal electoral districts with each district

voting for a Member of Parliament (MP) to represent them. (Malcolmson et al. 169-170) MPs

are commonly part of political parties made up of members who share the same or common

views as themselves. In Canada, we follow a single member plurality (SMP) or a first past the

post system. How this system works is that citizens vote for one candidate in a district and the

candidate with the most votes in that district wins. While this system seems fair it can lead to a

majority of citizens not feeling properly represented. (Malcolmson et al. 175-176) There are

alternate methods of electing officials such as proportional representation (PR) system and the

single transferable vote (STV) system. (Malcolmson et al. 191) With multiple ways for votes to

be counted, each with its own benefits and drawbacks, finding the one that is optimal, properly

displays the people’s wishes, and is fair can be challenging. Should Canada’s single member

plurality electoral system be replaced? Yes, Canada’s single member plurality system should be

replaced by a proportional representation electoral system. A proportional representation

electoral system should replace the single member plurality system because it more accurately

reflects the will of the people, gives smaller parties more opportunity to be properly represented

and would allow for a more diverse representation within each party’s caucus. First, the essay

will demonstrate how compared to the SMP system, the PR system better represents the will of

the people. Second, the essay will look at how PR system gives smaller parties a more
 2

opportunity to be properly represented in Parliament. Third, the essay will explore how a PR

system will allow for more diverse representation within each party’s caucus.

The idea behind an election is that it’s meant to accurately reflect the will of the people,

but under a SMP system that is not always the case. SMP tends to not accurately reflect the will

of the people by overinflating larger parties and not giving roughly the same percentage of seats

as the percentage of the popular vote earned. SMP is a simple winner takes all system, the

candidate with the most votes is elected as the representative. Today, SMP is used in 5

countries, Canada, the United States, India and Great Britain. SMP has some advantages such as

being familiar to the people, it’s a simple method that is easy to comprehend and its clear that the

person with the most votes is the winner. However, in many cases, SMP poorly reflects what the

people want and can produce great distortions. (Caron, 19) Generally, SMP tends to inflate the

trends in public opinion often creating large majorities in Parliament. For example, in the 1998

Quebec general election, Premier Lucien Bouchard, the leader of the Parti Quebecois won the

election with 77 seats which was 42.87% of the popular vote. The runner up was Jean Charest,

of the Liberal Party with 47 seats and 43.55% of the popular vote. This meant that despite

Charest earning 0.68% more of the popular vote than Bouchard he had 30 less seats. (Caron 19)

These sorts of results represent the fundamental issue of the SMP system, the popular vote of the

people is not accurately reflected in the seats distributed to the parties. This issue isn’t solely a

provincial one, it has also occurred federally in 1896, 1926, 1957 and 1979. In each one of those

cases the party that won the election and received the greatest number of seats did not win the

popular vote. (Caron 20) These situations occur because the translation from the popular vote to

seats won is not exact, the SMP system does not pay attention at all to the popular vote of the

country but simply chooses the candidate with the most votes as the winner for each district to
 3

represent them in Parliament. An extreme example of the popular vote not accurately reflecting

seats won in Parliament can be found in the 1935 federal election. The winner, Prime Minister

W.L Mackenzie King of the Liberal Party, won the election by winning 171 seats of the 245

seats available which translates roughly to 70% of the seats. Despite winning 70% of the seats

he had only won 44.68% of the popular vote. (Caron, 21) These cases demonstrate how the SMP

system can get out of hand and completely distort the will of the people. Larger parties such as

Prime Minister W.L Mackenzie King’s Liberal Party can be overinflated by receiving 25.32%

more seats than the popular vote won.

The biggest indication that the SMP system does not truly reflect the will of the people is

highlighted by the discrepancy between seats won and portion of the popular vote won. This

issue is addressed under a PR system, a PR system determines how many seats a party gets based

on how much of the popular vote they win. From there, the party will have a prepared list of the

candidates they want in Parliament and based on how many seats they win, that number of

candidates from the list are selected. This system allows for the government and the seat

distribution to accurately reflect what the population voted for. (The Economist) For example, in

the 2015 Canadian general election under the current SMP system the Liberals won 184 seats

with 39.47% of the popular vote, the Conservatives won 99 seats with 31.89% of the popular

vote, the NDP won 44 seats with 19.71% of the popular vote, the Bloc Quebecois won 10 seats

with 4.66% of the popular vote and the Green won 1 seat with 3.45% of the popular vote.

(Report on the 42nd General Election of October 19, 2015) In comparison, if the election was

held under a PR system then the Liberals would how won 134 seats which is 39.6% of the seats,

the Conservatives would have won 109 seats which is 32.2% of the seats, the NDP would have

won 67 seats which is 19.8% of the vote, the Bloc Quebecois would have won 16 seats which is
 4

4.79% of the seats and the Greens would have won 12 seats which is 3.5% of the seats.

(Malcolmson et.al, 191) When comparing the percentage of seats earned under and PR system to

the percentage of the popular vote won, we can see how accurately the number of seats won by

each party reflects the percentage of the popular vote they won. Now the will of the people is

properly represented with normally overinflated larger parties losing seats and diminished

smaller parties gaining more seats.

While the leading parties enjoy a boost in seats due to the SMP system it always comes at

a cost for smaller parties. Less popular national parties are put at a huge disadvantage and hold

little influence in government due to them having only a handful of seats despite having a good

portion of the popular vote. (Potter et.al, 90) In Canada the smallest national party tends to be the

Green Party, in the 2008 federal election the Green Party won almost 7% of the popular vote in

Canada despite not winning a single seat. (Report on the 40th General Election of

October 14, 2008) Under a PR system smaller national parties have a fair opportunity at being

properly represented in Parliament and influencing government with the proper number of seats

the people awarded them. The PR system would also dissuade strategic voting, strategic voting

occurs when a voter wants to vote for a small party but believes they have no shot of winning the

riding, so instead of wasting his or her vote he or she will vote for one of the major parties in the

district instead. They may not fully support that party but in their eyes its better than the

alternative. (Fisher, 153) Strategic voting or tactical voting is a result of the SMP system due to

its winner take all mindset, not only do smaller parties have an even smaller chance of winning a

seat due to strategic voting but their popular vote share is far greater than the seats they win.

(Fisher, 157) Smaller parties being properly represented in Parliament means that more views are

shared and people’s voices heard, an SMP system effectively cripples them into remaining small
 5

parties because no one thinks they can win. No voter wants to have a wasted ballot and so they

strategically cast their vote for one of the larger parties hoping that their vote counts for

something.

Wasted ballots is a common issue with a SMP system, a candidate of a district doesn’t

even have to win the majority of the votes in a district to be deemed the winner. For example, in

a hypothetical 3 candidate race, if 2 of the candidates earn 33% of the vote and 1 earns 34% of

the vote, then the 34% vote wins leaving 66% of the riding unhappy. (Malcolmson et al. 183-

184) A PR system does not have wasted ballots and every vote helps in shaping the composition

of the Parliament. People feel like there vote counts for something because every vote does

matter under a PR system. Looking at countries like New Zealand who swapped their elections

from a SMP system to a PR system we can see the effects PR has on the electoral body.

Comparing their 1993 election under the SMP system to their 1996 election under a PR system,

there was a 5.46% increase in turnout with smaller parties like the NZ First, Alliance and ACT

getting an increase of 12, 13 and 8 seats respectively. The 2 major parties National and Labour

saw little change with National gaining 3 seats and Labour losing 4. (Vowles, 259) According to

researchers the switch to a PR system was responsible for increased voter turnout and there was

an increase in voters believing their vote counted. (Karp and Banducci, 375) Smaller parties

benefit greatly from a PR system as they’re no longer held down by the SMP system which

overinflates larger parties at their cost. (Malcolmson et al. 187) PR also encourages more

political participation as more voters believe their vote really does count. While smaller parties

being represented is a good thing a criticism of PR is that it gives smaller parties too much power

because larger parties have a harder time achieving a majority and are more pressured to form a

coalition and make compromises with significantly smaller parties. (Malcolmson et al. 188)
 6

While this is true government cannot solely be one party running the show if the people did not

give it a clear majority. PR does not give government’s majority as much as SMP does but

because of this it encourages politicians to work together and compromise by forming coalitions.

While there are multiple variations of PR systems that exist one of the most common

ones was the previously explained party list system. No districts are drawn up with candidates

from different parties running in them, instead each party has a list with ranked candidates.

Depending on how many seats the party wins is how many candidates from their ranked list they

get to send to Parliament to fill those seats. This system not only encourages the Party’s top

minds to be ranked highest on the list to be the best representation possible but it also encourages

proper regional representation. (Malcolmson et.al, 186-187) For example, the Liberal Party in the

2015 federal election received 24.6% of the vote in Alberta. Despite this the party only received

4 seats out of the 34 available seats. That means that Albertan Liberals have less representation

in Parliament then they should, from 24.6% of the popular vote to 11.7% of the available seats.

Just 4 Liberal MPs are representing 24.6% of Alberta’s population. Under a PR system, since

members come from a list, a party can structure it so that every province is properly and

adequately represented. (Malcolmson et.al, 187) SMP tends to magnify a party’s strengths and

weaknesses regionally, so the Conservative Party is heavily and over represented in the western

provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan but not represented at all in the Atlantic provinces of

New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador.

(Malcolmson et.al, 186) In fact, no party at all is represented in the Atlantic Provinces besides

the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party in the 2015 election managed to win all 32 of the seats in

the Atlantic provinces despite the Conservative Party winning 25.3%, 17.9%, 19.3% and 10.3%

of the popular vote in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland
 7

respectively. (Report on the 42nd General Election of October 19, 2015.) Its one thing for there

to only be a handful of MPs to represent a large portion of a province’s population like the

Liberals in Alberta, but for there to be no representation at all in the Atlantic provinces for the

Conservatives, despite winning an adequate amount of the popular vote, speaks to the effect

SMP has at amplifying a party’s regional strengths and weaknesses.

Its not just proper regional representation that the party list can support but also

representation among minority groups. For instance, women, representation is an important

issue in Parliament, in the current 42nd Parliament of Canada there are currently 88 women MPs,

making up 26% of the MPs. (Report on the 42nd General Election of October 19, 2015) The

current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau of the Liberal Party, made a point of making sure his

Cabinet “Looks like Canada”, by ensuring his Cabinet was composed of both men and women

equally. (Linder, 68) Issues like these, where a group is underrepresented in Parliament can be

easily resolved via a party list PR system. A party has full control over their list and can really

appeal to voters with the types of people it puts on it in a priority order, from proper

representation regionally to representing minority groups a party can ensure that all of Canada is

represented in the House of Commons within their own party.

A PR system should replace the SMP system because PR allows for everybody’s vote to

count, have an effect on the election, allows smaller parties to be fairly represented which

encourages compromise between parties due to larger parties not getting majorities as easily, and

gives an opportunity for parties to have proper regional and minority representation. Under a PR

system, the issue of the popular vote not reflecting at all the share of seats won by each party as

seen in 1998 Quebec provincial election can be avoided. Everyone’s vote has a true effect on the

election as strategic voting is not encouraged and no ballots are wasted. Smaller parties will not
 8

be diminished due to larger parties being over inflated by SMP. While the SMP system is still

being used today, many countries like New Zealand have made the switch and seen higher voter

turnout and an increase in voters believing their vote truly counts. As well, parties will have the

opportunity at ensuring that every region and minority is properly represented within their party

when earning seats for Parliament. The SMP system is simple, straightforward and a clear

winner is chosen for each district as its representative. However, SMP leaves many people’s

votes being left wasted as the candidate does not even need more than 50% of the vote to win a

district. PR is a true representation of the people’s will and as a system accurately reflects what

the people of Canada voted for in Parliament.

 9

Works Cited

"A wide choice of ways to choose." The Economist, 1 May 1993, p. 20. Academic OneFile,

http://link.galegroup.com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/apps/doc/A13702060/AONE?u=otta7797

3&sid=AONE&xid=0ecb6050. Accessed 27 Nov. 2018.

Caron, Jean-Francois. "End of the first-past-the post electoral system?" Canadian Parliamentary

Review, Autumn 1999, pp. 19-22. Academic OneFile,

http://link.galegroup.com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/apps/doc/A30455046/AONE?u=otta7797

3&sid=AONE&xid=9e2acbe9. Accessed 27 Nov. 2018.

Fisher, Stephen D. “Definition and Measurement of Tactical Voting: The Role of Rational

Choice.” British Journal of Political Science, vol. 34, no. 01, 2004,

doi:10.1017/s0007123403220391.

Karp, Jeffrey A., and Susan A. Banducci. “The Impact of Proportional Representation on

Turnout: Evidence from New Zealand.” Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 34,

no. 3, Nov. 1999, pp. 363–377.

Linder, Moritz. "Female Representation in Politics and the Effect of Quotas." DICE Report, vol.

13, no. 4, 2015, pp. 68-70. ProQuest, https://search-proquest-

com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/docview/1785279283?accountid=14701.

Malcolmson, Patrick, et al. The Canadian Regime: An Introduction to Parliamentary

Government in Canada. University of Toronto Press, 2016.

Report on the 40th General Election of October 14, 2008. Elections Canada Online, 27 Aug.

2018,
 10

www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rep%2Foff%2Fsta_2008&document=p2

&lang=e#p2_8

Report on the 42nd General Election of October 19, 2015. Elections Canada Online, 27 Aug.

2018,

www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rep%2Foff%2Fsta_2015&document=p2

&lang=e#24.

Potter, Andrew, et al. Should We Change How We Vote? Published for the McGill Institute for

the Study of Canada by McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2017.

Vowles, Jack. “The New Zealand General Election of 1996.” Electoral Studies, vol. 16, no. 2,

1997, pp. 258–262., doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(97)90091-3.