The record high popularity for any party running in a federal election in Canada is 54 percent. This was set in 1948 by Diefenbaker.
None of our governments since then have never had the proven support of more than that, and they often have had the proven support of less than half the voters. Actually in Canadian federal elections only six times has a party won a majority of the vote. (See my blog "Canada's minority rule" when I finish writing it!))
This low popularity of our ruling parties can be badly compared to the large majorities shown by seat counts in the House of Commons.
For example:
Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservatives took 78 percent of the seats in the House of Commons, with only 53.67 percent of the vote, in 1958.
Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives won 75 percent of the seats in the House of Commons, with just above 50 percent of the vote, in 1984.
Seeing these unbalanced results and knowing that under FPTP they could happen again, I think it is high time to get the seat counts of the parties in the House of Commons to look like the parties' vote count percentage-wise.
Such an improved situation would allow the House to better reflect the sentiment of Canadians, help break down the political divide of Right against Left, and lessen the regionalism that is inflamed by the present FPTP system.
Single Transferable Voting, a system of district-level proportional representation, would help.
Even if established in only a good portion of the cities in Canada, it would go a good distance toward a fairer result and more representational membership in the House. By allowing MPs of each of the large parties to be elected in each province, STV would address regionalism.
It is time to put the House in order!
===========================================
What is STV?
From a 1902 reform magazine: "Thinking it well to have in every number something by way of a brief explanation of proportional voting, I repeat in this number the following. Proportional representation means the use of a reasonable and scientific system of voting instead of the present stupid, unfair and inefficient procedure. Methods: There are several systems by which the principle of proportional representation may be given effect to. Large electoral districts, each electing several members, are a necessary feature. The "quota" plan is usually employed. It means that a quota of the votes elects one representative. To arrive at the quota, the number of valid votes cast is divided by the number of seats to be filled. For instance in a seven-member district any one-seventh of the voters could elect one representative and the other six-sevenths could not interfere with their choice. The three principal systems of proportional representation are the Free List as used in Switzerland and Belgium [party-list pro-rep], the Hare system as used in Tasmania [STV], and the Gove System as advocated in Massachusetts. The Preferential Vote [Alternative Voting/Instant Run-off Voting] -- This is used in the election of single officers such as a mayor. It is not strictly a form of pro-rep but is akin thereto, and uses part of the same voting methods. The object of preferential voting is to encourage the free nomination of candidates and to obtain always a clear majority at one balloting, no matter how many candidates are nominated." (From the Proportional Representation Review Dec. 1902, p. 77) (Hathi Trust online resource, page 81/180) Thanks for reading. Check out my blog "list of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject. ----------------------------------- This year: *Alberta is celebrating 150 years in Confederation 1870-2020 *100th Anniversary of STV first being used to elect legislators in Canada Winnipeg MLAs first elected through STV in 1920 ==============================================================
Comments