(this is "Canada" section of Wiki Electoral Reform article, as of December 2024)
Canada
Several national and provincial organizations promote electoral reform, especially by advocating more party-proportional representation, as most regions of Canada have at least three competitive political parties (some four or five) and the traditional first-past-the-post election system operates best where just two parties are competing.
The leading alternatives to first past the post currently are STV, Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMP) (that uses both single-member districts and top-up seats), and "Rural–urban proportional representation" (which combines STV in multi-member districts, single member districts and top-up seats).[6] Others are Dual-Member PR[7], Local PR[8] and list PR in multi-member districts. These PR systems emphasize either proportional allocation of seats to parties (or their candidates) or a high rate of effective votes (votes actually used to elect someone), through transfers away from where initially placed if that means they would be wasted (STV) or through many parties electing representation (most forms of PR). Both proportionality and raised rate of effective votes result, whichever strategy is emphasized.
The Constitution prevents votes from moving across provincial borders so without constitutional change, no overall proportionality can be guaranteed. Multi-member districts are currently prohibited, but that is at the discretion of the Parliament of Canada. Every province, and federal elections too, have used multi-member districts in the past.[9] Historically, all electoral systems used in Canada have allowed voter to cast a vote (or votes) for a candidate (or candidates). Casting a vote for a party list has never been done in Canada.[10]
Perhaps a vote drifting outside the riding where it was originally cast may also be prohibited by the Constitution. (or if the Parliament can change working rules so MMDs are allowed (which it can), then perhaps it can rule that under certain circumstances a vote can move to a region or a different district in order to be used.
There are several electoral reform advocacy groups. Fair Vote Canada is a large non-party organization advocating electoral reform nationally. The Equal Vote Coalition has organized a multi-year research campaign involving many of the world experts on electoral reform.[11]
"Election Districts Voting" advocates a particular form of proportional representation where vote is used in successively larger districts. The plan is intended to ensure large majorities of voters directly elect party candidates of choice, not just parties of choice.[12]
Canada has not always used the single-winner first past the post system that is now ubiquitous. As recently as the 1990s, plurality block voting was in use. The provinces of Manitoba and Alberta used the partial use of proportional representation (Single Transferable Voting) from the 1920s to the 1950s.
The franchise has also been extended to give the vote to women, particular races or ethnic groups, those with Treaty Indian status, adults younger than 21. So far none of those changes have followed a referendum, with the sole exception being extension of the franchise to (some) women in British Columbia in 1916.[13]
Several referendums to decide whether or not to adopt proportional representation have been held at the provincial level since 2005. None has thus far resulted in a change from the plurality system.
Controversially, the referendum threshold for adoption of a new voting system has regularly been set at a "supermajority": for example, 60 percent of ballots cast approving the change in order for the change to be implemented. In most provincial referendums the change side received less than 40 percent support. But in two cases, a majority of voters voted for change.
In the 2005 electoral reform referendum held in British Columbia, a majority of votes were cast in favour of change to STV.[14]
In the November 7, 2016, electoral reform plebiscite on Prince Edward Island, the government declined to specify in advance how it would use the results. Mixed member proportional Representation won the five-option instant-runoff voting contest, taking 55 percent of the final vote versus 45 percent for first-past-the-post,
But the PEI government did not commit to implementing a proportional voting system, citing the turnout of 36 percent as making it "doubtful whether these results can be said to constitute a clear expression of the will of Prince Edward Islanders". PEI regularly sees turnout above 80 percent in most elections.[15]
Seven provincial level referendums on electoral reform have been held to date:
During the 2015 federal election all three opposition parties promised some measure of electoral reform before the next federal election. The NDP promised to implement mixed-member proportional representation with regional and open party lists, based on the 2004 recommendations of the Law Commission.[16]
The Liberal leader, who is now prime minister, Justin Trudeau, promised to make the election the last that would use first past the post. He promised, if elected, to form an all-party committee to investigate various electoral reform options "including proportional representation, ranked ballots, mandatory voting and online voting."[17]
Trudeau has admitted that in 2015 he preferred a winner-take-all, preferential voting system known as Instant Runoff Voting.[18] Despite his misgivings about proportional representation, Trudeau made promises he would approach the issue with an open mind.
Many prominent members of his caucus and cabinet (including Stephane Dion, Dominic Leblanc, and Chrystia Freeland) stated they supported proportional representation.[16] In 2012, Dion authored an editorial for the National Post advocating his variation of proportional representation by the single transferable vote dubbed "P3" (proportional, preferential and personalized).[19]
Conservative interim leader, Rona Ambrose, indicated a willingness to investigate electoral reform options. Her party's stated position was that any reform must first be approved by the voters in a referendum.
After its election to a plurality of seats in the House of Commons, the Liberal government stated a referendum was unnecessary as Liberals clearly campaigned on making "2015 Canada's last First Past the Post election."
The Green Party of Canada has long been supportive of proportional representation. At the party's Special General Meeting in Calgary on December 5, 2016, Green Party members passed a resolution endorsing Mixed Member Proportional Representation as its preferred model, while maintaining an openness to any proportional voting system producing an outcome with a score of 5 or less on the Gallagher Index.[20]
Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Electoral Reform urged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to break his promise to change Canada's voting system before the next federal election in 2019. Meanwhile, opposition members of the committee pressured Trudeau to keep the commitment. In its final report, Strengthening Democracy in Canada, (December 2016) the Standing Committee on Electoral Reform recommended the government design a proportional election system and hold a national referendum to gauge Canadians' support.[21]
Between December 2016 and January 2017, the Government of Canada undertook a survey of Canadian opinion regarding electoral reform, with some 360,000 responses received.
On February 1, 2017, the Liberal Minister of Democratic Institutions, Karina Gould, announced that a change of voting system was no longer in her mandate, citing a lack of broad consensus among Canadians on what voting system would be best.[22]
The Province of Ontario permitted the use of Instant-Runoff Voting for municipal elections.[23] IRV is not a proportional voting system and is opposed by both Fair Vote Canada and Election Districts Voting[24] for provincial or federal elections.[25] The Ontario government later rescinded this legislation, and municipalities use a plurality system (either first past the post or plurality block voting) for all elections.
===================
in response to let's copy our neighbours:
about 107 countries use PR today, at least in part, to elect one or both federal chambers
most use a form of list PR, and most of them use regionalized list PR.
don't know breakdown of open list PR versus closed list PR.
Denmark uses open-list list PR in districts (all MMDs) and list PR to allocate seats in national top-up. Voter casts one vote.
About same small number use either MMP (Germany uses regionalized MMP) and STV.
BUT
Canada and U.S. never have used list PR.
few, if any, British Commonwealth countries use or have used list PR.
most use FPTP,
Vanuatu uses SNTV,
newly-independent Commonwealth countries generally go to list PR
Canadians have always voted directly for candidate, sometimes not even with party labels used (like in city elections).
our "Mother country" U.K. is currently using FPTP for national elections,
and STV (Scotland and N. ireland), and
Wales to use closed list proportional representation system using the D’Hondt method with 6 seat constituencies, starting in 2030 or so.
and our closest "friend" U.S.A. is using all non-proportional methods, although in past many cities have used STV (and a handful are using it now) and Illinois used semi-P Cumulative Voting in MMDs.
If we want system that forces least change on voters IMO:
-change to MMDs wherever possible
(used in past; many citris use at-large districting currently for city elections.
(in most cases MMD would be no larger than an area that is represented by a mayor)
-voter place one vote for candidate.
-at their option allow them to mark back-up preferences (likely along party lines so simple if voters even do it, but small parties would get benefit of not seeing their votes simply thrown away if they move to more-pop. candidates who are elected.).
that alone would give geat fairness compared to present.
or same MMD, single voting where MMD seats are allocated as per largest remainder method by party in Real's simple open list list PR method.
so unfortunately there are simple explanations
and there are simple systems
but not all simple systems can be explained simply, especialy when people ask how it would affect the relevant elected bodies and how it would affect future behavoiur of governments,
and the simplest systems to explain don't work the best - such as FPTP.
That is part of the struggle of ER.
more of an art than science at this stage
- with different terms for same thing,
-terms that mean diff things to diff people.
and sometimes it seems art for art sake as most people are not interested even thogh governments are vitally important to their day to day lives.
one could write a book "The present need for PR - how people of the world have struggled with their elected governments"
the point being that too often a majority of people do not choose their elected governments but have to unhappily live with them.
any system that elects multiple members to represent a district (the people within a set geographical district) will
-stop artificially-created regional or provincial one-party sweeps,
-allow a large proportion of voters therein to have actual representation.
-produce a government where Conservatives in Toronto, NDP in Saskatchewan - and Conservatives in SK, and NDP and Liberals in Toronto - all have representation.
hope is that PR will decrease political frustration but if minority in chamber is disregarded anyway, then who knows?
But at least that shut out has been moved to more visible place-- the chamber -- and not spred out and hidden among stay at homes and ignored district minorities' vote tallies.
but definitely PR would open door to intra-party co-operation (forced by more frequent minority governments and the cross-party transfers produced by ranked voting if any)
and encourage people to vote, knowing their vote will actually mean something in high proportion of cases
(80 to 90 percent of votes go to the winners in a district under list PR or STV, and for party votes in MMP in NZ).
IRV aims for only 50 percent plus 1, and even that it fails at in many cases, based on original votes cast.
FPTP is said to achieve 50 percent plus 1 but only guaranteed true if only two run, the case a long time ago but no more,
FPTP anything from 24 percent to 82 percent possible to elect the member.
with a candidate winning with low of only 18 percent, twice in Canada's history.
==========
Comments