In 2023 Springtide and Fair Vote Canada (BC) brought a Chater Challenge against the First Past The Post election system.
They asked the judge to rule that the inequities found under FPTP were unconstitutional as each Canadian has the right to equal political and voting power under the Constitution and FPTP does not give us that.
Disappointingly, the judge ruled that although he saw PR as being more fair, FPTP was within the constitution.
The ruling is being appealed on several grounds.
THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows:
1. Sections 2(1), 24(1), and 313(1) of the CEA establish Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system (FPTP);
2. The Application judge fell into legal error when he found that the s. 3 Charter right to vote protects only the ability of Canadians to vote and express themselves in the electoral process but not their right to have a voice in the deliberations of Parliament;
3. The Application judge fell into legal error when he failed to find that FPTP breaches the parity of voting power for voters within the same riding without furthering the right of voters to effective representation;
4. The Application judge fell into legal error when he failed to evaluate whether and find that FPTP breaches the s. 3 Charter right to meaningful participation by reducing the voting incentives of citizens, reducing the incentives of voters in safe ridings to participate in the electoral process, reducing the capacity of voters for small parties and small parties to participate in the electoral process and dialogue, and distorting the incentives of citizens to vote in a manner that accurately reflects their preferences;
5. The Application judge fell into legal error when he found that the Constitution Act, 1867 supports the claim that FPTP is constitutional;
6. The Application judge fell into error when he found that implementing any type of proportional representation would inevitably entail some form of constitutional amendment;
7. The Application judge fell into error when he found, contrary to the overwhelming consensus of experts in the field, that Canada’s FPTP does not contribute to the underrepresentation of women in Parliament;
8. The Application judge fell into error when he found that Canada’s FPTP does not contribute to the underrepresentation of racial minorities, national minorities and Indigenous minorities in Parliament;
9. The Application judge fell into error when he found that political affiliation is not an analogous ground under s. 15 of the Charter;
10. Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.
see
it seems clear that FPTP values some votes over others, values votes for some parties more than votes for other parties.
and we see that with safe seats, votes for indigenous representatives, and representation for racial minorities and national minorities; representatives of women voters; votes for small parties; in any district votes for everyone other than the winning candidate.
with no good reason for those inequities - they do not further "the right of voters to effective representation", just as the appeal states.
=========================================
Comments