Electoral Reform in Canada Long Overdue

On 13 October 2007, Victoria's "Times Colonist" published an article filled with misinformation about voting systems (Iain Hunter, “Electoral reform comes with a hidden cost"). Therefore I would like to set the record straight.

Mathematicians and political scientists have researched voting for the past 250 years. The first studied aspect is how a voting system expresses the choice of the people. The second deals with the political consequences of the model. The first-past-the-post system was proved to be the worst from both points of view. No wonder that very few democratic countries use it today. They are: Bangladesh, Canada, India, Jamaica, Malawi, Mongolia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. None of the newly emerged democracies in Eastern Europe adopted it in the 1990s, all of them opting for some form of proportional representation.

Under the first-past-the-post method, the candidate with most votes wins. In a ten-candidate riding, a winner could emerge with as few as 10-percent-plus-one votes, a case in which almost 90 percent of the electorate could have stayed home. The distortion between the popular vote and the distribution of seats is usually large. In 1996 in British Columbia, for instance, the NDP won a majority of 39 out of 75 seats with only 39.5 percent of the vote, although the Liberals obtained 42 percent. In 2001, the Liberals won 77 seats out of 79 with 58 percent popular support. Including those who didn’t vote, only 41 percent of the electorate endorsed this crushing victory of the Liberals. Such anomalies are rather the rule. In British general elections, for example, a relative match between the popular vote and the distribution of seats happened only twice in history: in 1892 and in 1923.

Supporters of the first-past-the-post-system invoke the issue of stability. They claim that this model leads to majority regimes, which dominate the legislative body and can impose the laws the country needs. Such governments often claim to have a mandate from the people to implement their political platform. As a consequence they cut short many debates the opposition initiates. But the mandate issue is unsupported by figures like above, when majority governments are backed by less than half of the electorate. In Britain, for instance, the highest number of minority elected members of parliament was 408 (or 64.3 percent of the House) in February 1974. The elections of October 1974 led to 380 (or 59.8 percent) of minority representatives. High figures also occurred in 1929, almost 54 percent, and 1997, 47 percent.

Political stability under the first-past-the-post system is an illusion when three or more parties come into play. Canadian federal politics, for instance, has always accommodated more than two parties, though only two of them have played a major role. But the other parties have had an important impact. Out of 39 elections held in Canada in democratic times, 12 (more than 30 percent) have led to minority regimes. None lasted a full term so far, and most of them were in power for less than two years. Moreover, the first-past-the-post system is the very reason of instability in minority governments because a swing of a few percent in polls can put one party in majority territory with only 42 or 43-percent support, so that party is tempted to trigger and election. When no party has at least 50-percent endorsement, which is usually the case, politicians are more likely to negotiate deals and ensure stability.

There are many examples of highly successful minority regimes. The most famous in Canada is the government of Lester Pearson elected in 1963. During its term, his government introduced the Canada health care system, presented the country with a new flag, and created the Canada Pension Plan. In less than five years, Pearson changed the face of this country for the better without breaking any election promise.

Most European countries use proportional representation systems, and they work well. But no voting method is perfect—as it was proved by Kenneth Arrow of Stanford University, a result for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics in 1972. Nevertheless, we know that some voting methods are better than others, and that the first-past-the-post system is the most undemocratic of all. Almost 58 percent of British Columbians who voted in the 2005 referendum for electoral reform seem to know that. They also know that there is no hidden cost to pay by making our voting system more democratic, and giving women and minorities their voice in our legislature. Premier Campbell has promised a new referendum on electoral reform in 2009. The majority of British Columbians are looking forward to it.