Proportional representation for Dummies

CTV.ca News Staff
June 24, 2004 5:50 PM ET

With polls pointing toward the strong possibility of a minority government, the idea of proportional representation is being tossed around by politicians and voters alike.

On Wednesday, NDP leader Jack Layton said he'd support a minority government if it agreed to hold a national referendum on proportional representation.

"Our voting system is broken," Layton said. "It's time for a rebirth of our democracy."

Green Party Leader Jim Harris echoed Layton's views in a release Thursday, saying that proportional representation "is far more reflective of our current political climate."

In 2003, Prime Minister Paul Martin voted against a motion for a referendum on proportional representation. But he's recently changed his view. He says he's willing to consider electoral reform.

"I think that's essential in terms of engaging Canadians, whether it's proportional representation, whether it's fixed-term limits, whether it's the role of MPs," Martin said.

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe supports proportional representation. The Conservative platform says it'll consider the system, along with other democratic reforms.

Proportional representation is not new. Forms of the system are already in place in dozens of countries, including New Zealand, Germany, Brazil and South Africa.

But what is proportional representation?

It's an electoral system in which the number of seats a party wins is proportional or equitable to the percentage of popular votes the party gets. For example, if a party wins 60 per cent of votes, it'll get 60 per cent of the seats.

Each party would publish a "priority" list of candidates, where the leader of the party is at the top of the list. The higher up the list a candidate is, the more likely they are to be elected. In Canada's case, if one party won 50 per cent of the vote, they'd get 154 seats in Parliament (half of the total 308 seats).

In some cases, each party's list is actually printed on the ballot and voters not only pick the party of their choice, but rank the candidates according to their preference. That means female voters who feel their views would best be represented by a female candidate could vote for one.

The problem is that no Canadian political party has a code of conduct, which forces them to choose candidates based on their gender. But legislation to the effect could be enacted.

"Most PR systems would not want to make the mistake of not ensuring that everyone's represented," David Shugarman, a political science professor at York University told CTV.ca.

The federal priority lists would also have to take into account geographical representation. For example, if the majority of voters were from Ontario, it would make sense to have MPs from the province. In that case, parties could draw up provincial priority lists.

"That's the big thing. Do you want parties to determine that kind of priority list without any kind of electoral commission?" Shugarman said. However, he said the parties could work out the kinks before a new electoral system was put in place.

What's wrong with the current system?

Currently, Canada operates on a system call first-past-the-post, where the winner takes all. Critics say the system has several problems, including:

• wasted votes;
• voter apathy;
• strategic voting;
• exaggeration of regional differences;
• each vote holds a different value

Under the winner-takes-all system, votes count only when voters share the most popular partisan viewpoint in the riding. For example, if the winning candidate in one riding received 40 per cent support, the support of 60 per cent of constituents have no effect on how the seats are allocated. Critics say our current system also "wastes" votes for candidates who win more than 50 per cent of the vote. Any additional votes have no added value in terms of how voters will be represented.

As a result, the 60 per cent who voted for losing candidates may feel left out, and stop voting altogether.

Canada already has a steadily declining rate of voter turnout. In 1988, voter turnout was 75.3 per cent. In the last election, only 61.2 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots.

All this has led to strategic voting. Some voters feel pressured to choose the "lesser of two evils" to prevent a party they dislike from winning power. That means they don't vote for the party they actually support.

Critics of our current system also say it leads to an exaggeration of regional differences. In the last federal election, there was one Liberal vote for every two Alliance votes in the west. But the Liberals didn't win many seats in that part of the country. In Ontario, Liberals won 95 of Ontario's 103 federal seats. But half of the province's voters supported other parties.

Some analysts say that under the current system, each voter's ballot holds a different value. In the last election, 207,000 Alliance voters elected 10 Alliance MPs in Saskatchewan. But 220,000 Alliance voters in Quebec couldn't elect a single Alliance MP.

"It's entirely mathematically possible that a party with only 33.4 per cent support could win 100 per cent of the seats," said Shugarman. That would happen if support for three main parties was split exactly three ways.

That would also leave 66.6 per cent of voters unsatisfied with the "elected" party.

How does proportional representation work?

New Zealand and Germany use hybridized electoral systems, using both the winner-take-all model and proportional representation.

It is this version that the NDP and Green Party are proposing for Canada. In the proposed system, each voter would have two choices on their ballots. One for their local candidate, the second for a party.

That means half of the seats are filled with local candidates. The other half goes to the parties with the most popular support.

The NDP is also proposing the creation of aboriginal seats in Parliament, to guarantee their voice is heard at the national table.

Earlier this year, the Law Commission of Canada released a study on proportional representation. It concluded that "many Canadians desire an electoral system that better reflects the society in which they live -- one that includes a broader diversity of ideas and is more representative of Canadian society."

The study suggests a new system that incorporates proportionality. They say mixed systems provide the best of both worlds -- accountability and geographic representation, a strength of the current system, and the fairness of proportional representation.