top of page
Tom Monto

The Dangerous dis-function of single-winner plurality elections (FPTP)

Updated: Nov 2, 2023

Here's some examples of FPTP "democratic dis-function" (showing percentages of the votes to show what should have happened!):

I have organized FPTP failings into categories: Wrong-winner elections False majorities 100 percent of seats taken by one party A single party making a province-wide sweep of HofC seats: One-party sweep of a whole metropolis Near-total sweeps of all of a province's seats Alberta almost always experienced total or near-total one-party sweeps Party in power in Ottawa does not secure at least one seat in each of the provinces Alberta Liberals un-represented for 31 years


A party's voters across a whole province being un-represented for a long period of time, despite getting as much as 18 percent of the vote

Alberta CCF/NDP mostly without representation for 73 years Minority representation in districts -- Majority of the vote frustrated in many districts Waste of votes - unequal numbers needed to win average seat.

Inverse logic --- reverse happens of what we would have expected-

FPTP likely has other failings as well. Here's the details. Wrong winner elections In 1896, Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberals with seven percent less of the vote than the Conservatives, got more seats. Laurier ended up with a majority government.


1957 federal election -- Conservatives got 130,000 fewer votes than Liberals but got seven more seats, to lead a minority government.


1979 federal election -- Conservatives got 500,000 fewer votes than Liberals but got 22 more seats, to lead a minority government.


False majorities every one of the majority governments in the House of Commons since 1921 have been false majorities except 1940, 1958 and 1984. provincially Alberta Many times an Alberta party has taken less than a majority of the votes and was still elected to a majority of the seats in the legislature false majorities in Alberta -- 1971, 1989, 1993, 2004, 2012, 2015 Ontario 2022 -- Conservatives got 2/3 of the seats with 2/5ths of the vote. definitely false majority.

100 percent of seats taken by one party (has not happened in the House of Commons)

provincial elections where this has happened: NB in 1987; PEI in 1935


A single party making a province-wide sweep of HofC seats: FPTP exaggerates the political complexion of different sections of the country. 2021 federal election currently all Saskatchewan MPs are Conservative. currently all MPs in PEI are Liberal.

Saskatchewan 2021 federal election 14 seats - -- Conservatives took all 14 seats with 64 percent of the vote. Liberals (12 percent of the vote), NDP (20 percent of votes) and Greens (3 percent of the vote) took no seats PEI 2021 federal election 4 seats -- Liberals took all 4 seats with 44 percent of the vote. Conservatives (27 percent of the vote), NDP (8 percent of votes) and Greens (21 percent of the vote) took no seats.


2019 federal election




2006 federal election Under FPTP, in the 2006 election, the federal Conservative Party of Canada won all the seats in Alberta, achieving a complete sweep of the province's federal seats. 2000 federal election PEI 2000 4 seats -- Liberals took all 4 seats, with 47 percent of the vote. Conservatives (38 percent of the vote) and NDP (9 percent of votes) took no seats 1921 federal election Quebec, PEI and Nova Scotia elected all Liberals. In all these provinces a very considerable percentage of votes went to the other parties and these voters then had no representation.


One party sweep of a whole metropolis

One party sweep of Toronto seats 1921 federal election -- Toronto elected nine Conservatives while under STV five Conservatives and four Liberals would likely have been elected. One party sweep of Montreal seats 1921 federal election -- Montreal elected 12 Liberal MPs while under STV nine Liberals and three Conservatives would likely have been elected.

One party sweep of Edmonton seats

from 1972 to 1988, Conservatives took all the Edmonton seats in each election.

In 2019, Conservatives again made an almost-total sweep of Edmonton seats, although receiving only 55 percent of city votes, which should have brought it only four of the eight Edmonton seats. The NDP took just one seat although being due two.


In the 1959 provincial election, under FPTP, the Social Credit party took all the Edmonton seats, although it received only 45 percent of the vote. (Under STV, a Farmer or a Labour MLA or both was elected in Edmonton in almost all elections from 1926 to 1955.)




All of a party's voters in a city excluded from representation for long period of time


Alberta provincial Under FPTP, no CCF/NDP MLAs were elected in Edmonton for 23 years, 1959 to 1982. Soemtimes one party (Conservatives) took all the city's seats even though getting less than half he votres on some occssions. Under STV, a Farmer or a Labour/CCF MLA or both at the same time were elected in Edmonton in almost all elections from 1926 to 1955, as well as Conservative and Liberal MLAs, and Social Credit MLAs after 1935. Near-total sweeps of all of a province's seats

2019 federal election Nova Scotia 7 seats - -- Liberals took 6 seats, all but one in the province, with 41 percent of the vote. Conservatives (26 percent of the vote) took one seat. NDP (19 percent of votes) and Greens (11 percent of the vote) took no seats Newfoundland and Labrador 7 seats - -- Liberals took 6 seats, all but one in the province, with 45 percent of the vote. NDP (24 percent of the vote) took one seat. Conservatives (28 percent of votes) and Greens (3 percent of the vote) took no seats Alberta 34 seats - -- Conservatives took 33 seats, all but one in the province, with 69 percent of the vote. NDP (12 percent of the vote) took one seat. Liberal (14 percent of votes) and Greens (3 percent of the vote) took no seats Ontario 2000 federal election 103 seats -- Liberals took 100 seats, all but three in the province, with 52 percent of the vote. Alliance (24 percent) took two seats; NDP (8 percent) took 1 seat. Conservatives (14 percent of the vote) took no seats.


1993 federal election

In the 1993 general election, the Liberals won 98 of the 99 seats in Ontario with 53 percent of the popular vote. The one other seat was won by Reform with 20 percent of the popular vote. PC (18 percent of the vote) and the NDP (6 percent of the vote) got no seats.


1911 federal election Ontario 86 seats - Conservatives (56 percent of the vote) took 71 seats. Liberals (31 percent of the vote) took 14 seats - proportionally they were due 27 MPs. BC 7 seats - Conservative total sweep. Conservatives (59 percent of the vote) took all the seats. Liberals (38 percent of the vote) took no seats. Alberta 7 seats - Liberals took 6 seats, all but one of the province's seats, with 53 percent of the vote. Conservatives (39 percent of the vote) took one seat; NDP (8 percent) took 1 seat. Saskatchewan 10 seats - Liberals took 9 seats, all but one of the province's seats, with 59 percent of the vote. Conservatives (39 percent of the vote) took one seat - proportionally they were due 3 MPs. Alberta history of one-party sweeps or almost-total sweeps Alberta almost always experienced total or near-total one-party sweeps of its federal seats. (Alberta is not alone in this, of course.) 1911 fed election Alberta had 7 seats - Liberals took 6 seats, all but one of the province's seats, with 53 percent of the vote. Conservatives (39 percent of the vote) took one seat. 1921 fed election Alberta had 12 seats - United Farmers took ten seats. Labour took two seats, both in Calgary. Conservatives (20 percent of the vote) and Liberals (16 percent of the vote) took no seats. 1958 fed election Alberta had 17 seats -- Progressive-Conservatives took all 17 seats, with 60 percent of the vote. Liberals (14 percent of the vote) and CCF (4 percent of votes) took no seats 1972 to 1988 Progressive-Conservatives took clean one-party sweeps of the Alberta seats, each time. 1984 for example, Liberals (13 percent of the vote) and NDP (14 percent of votes) took no seats 1988 fed election Alberta had 26 seats -- Progressive-Conservatives took 25 seats, all but one of the Alberta seats, with 52 percent of the vote. NDP (17 percent of the vote) took one seat. Liberals (14 percent of votes) and Reform (15 percent of the vote) took no seats. 1997 fed election Alberta had 26 seats -- Reform took 24 seats, all but two in the province, 55 percent of the vote. Liberals (24 percent of the vote) took only two seats. Conservatives (14 percent of the vote) and NDP (6 percent of votes) took no seats 2000 fed election Alberta had 26 seats -- Alliance took 23 seats, all but three of the province's seats, with only 59 percent of the vote. Liberals (21 percent of the vote) took only two seats. Conservatives (14 percent of the vote) took one. NDP (5 percent of votes) took no seats. Party in power in Ottawa does not secure at least one seat in each of the provinces In these cases, the province was not represented in the federal cabinet until a by-election or the next election secured a change. Alberta 1921 federal election 12 seats -- all seats were taken by just two parties but neither party were in power in the HofC. Alberta elected all UFA and Labour candidates. Liberals were in power in Ottawa, and Alberta elected no Liberals so could have no direct representation in cabinet.


Alberta Liberals un-represented for 31 years

Liberal party often elected no MPs in Alberta after the provincial Liberals lost power in 1921. For example, Alberta elected no Liberal 1958-1963, 1965-1968, 1972-1993, 2006-2015, 2019 to present.In those years Liberals were in power 1965-1968, 1972-1979, 1980-1984, 1993 to 2006, 2019 to the present. In those five period, a total of 31 years, Alberta did not have direct representation in the federal cabinet.This included the years when Pierre Trudeau tried to create a National Energy Plan. It did not last long. To this day, Canada is the only major country without a national energy plan. (or so I have heard)



A party's voters across a whole province being un-represented for a long period of time, despite getting as much as 18 percent of the vote


Alberta CCF/NDP mostly without representation for 73 years

Under FPTP, from 1935 to 2008, only one CCF/NDP MP was elected in Alberta from 1935 to 2008. Edmonton's Ross Harvey was the only one to break through the lock-out, serving as MP from 1988 to 1993.


The party was much more popular that that one victory portrays.


sampling of elections showing CCF/NDP's popularity:

1935 CCF 12 percent of the Alberta vote

1945 CCF 18 percent of the Alberta vote

1957 CCF 6 percent of the Alberta vote

1965 NDP 8 percent of the Alberta vote

1979 NDP 10 percent of the Alberta vote

1984 NDP 14 percent of the Alberta vote

2004 NDP 10 percent of the Alberta vote.


Minority representation in districts -- Majority of the district vote frustrated in many districts FPTP does not produce representation of any minority group in a district unless it represents only a minority, and sometimes that minority is quite small. 2014 Toronto city election Ward 16 (Eglinton-Lawrence) the successful candidate, Christin Carmichael Greb, received less than 18 percent of the vote. More than 82 percent of the voters were ignored, their will frustrated. 1944 Alberta election Army representative -- the successful candidate received less than 18 percent of the vote. 82 percent of the voters were ignored, their will frustrated. 1921 federal election -- 40 to 50 MPs were elected with the proven support of just a minority of the voters in their districts. 2018 Ontario election 73 MLAs were elected with support of less than half the votes in their district. (see details in https://montopedia.wixsite.com/montopedia/post/the-disproportionality-of-the-2018-ontario-election) 2022 Ontario election [maybe a FVC press release tells us how many MPPs were elected without majority of votes in their districts Waste of votes - unequal numbers needed to win average seat 2022 Ontario election 54% of voters―2,531,087―cast wasted votes that elected no-one.

279,265 Green votes elected just one MPP. 23,037 Conservative votes elected one MPP on average.


2019 federal election

In 2019, for every 1 Canadian who voted Green, 5 voted Liberal.

For every 1 seat the Green party received, the Liberal Party received 50.


1993 federal election

In 1993, the ratio of Liberal to Progressive Conservative voters was 5 to 2. The ratio of seats was 177 to 2.



Inverse logic --- reverse happens of what we would have expected


British Columbia

In 1983, the BC NDP received 45% of the vote and ended up in opposition.

In 1986, their support dropped to 43% and they were again in opposition.

In 1991, their support dropped again to 41% and they received a single-party majority government.

In 1996, their support dropped yet again to 39%, a lower percentage (fewer votes) than the BC Liberals, but the NDP again received a single-party majority government.


1909 Alberta provincial election

Charles O'Brien, of the Socialist Party of Canada, was elected in the Rocky Mountain district with 555 votes.

The next election (1913) he received 1000 votes and was not elected. ================================

and there's doubtless other dis-functions as well.


In the 1993 general election, the liberals won 98 of the 99 seats in Ontario with 52.9% of the popular vote. The one other seat was won by Reform with 20.1% of the popular vote. PC 17:6%; NDP 6%.


====================================

FPTP's bad math


FPTP works (to the degree that it does) in two-way contests in district. But even then only slight majority is rewarded with representation. and even under conditions optimum for FPTP, voters suffer under FPTP and makeup of chamber suffers. where three-cornered contests happen, FPTP is found to be inadequate even at the district level. the vote due to FPTP's limitations, two-way contests are encouraged, and voter is forced to vote according to two-party A or B choice. obscuring many voters' true sentiment. District FPTP means maximum number of districts. having many districts (a side-product of single-member districts) does not help things. and the more districts, the worse it gets. even if all districts have only two way contests, 70 percent in one district takes one seat while 51 percent takes the seat elsewhere.

These are percentages of votes cast, which for two reasons fluctuate wildly from district to district.

First distrcit do not contain the same number of residents and voters.

Secondly, the rate of voter turn-out varies from district to district.


So even if winner's portion is confined to relatively-narrow 20 to 30 percent range (from 51 percent to 81 percent), the number of votes taken by a winner in a two-person fight in one district may be much larger or much smaller than the number of votes taken by a winner in a two-person fight in a different district. And once we get into three-, four-, five-cornered election contests, the variance becomes big-time. Under our present FPTP system, the electorate is divided into districts with - each district having different population

(even within a 20 + or - range means relative district size can be everything from 80 to 120. and almost always much wider variance is allowed than just 20 percent for one reason or another) - different rate of voter turn-out from district to district (from 50 percent to 70 percent), - and varying proportions of votes for the winner to be elected due to multi-cornered contests (everything from 18 percent to 80 percent), There is vast differences of vote tallies for winners. With each party winning the seats that they happen to with a different number of votes for each seat, there is great disproportion of votes per seat from party to party and hence great disproportionality in the makeup of the chamber. PR (I believe) will have fewer, larger MMDs (fewer in number than our present 338 or 341), fair voting within each district, and possibly top-up at wider scale, so will be much more fair than FPTP can be depended on to produce.


Said a different way:

FPTP has not served us well for the last century. It never worked very well. it works fine in a single district, if there are only two candidates running for one spot. But those instances are scarce and have been so for a long time.


And when you have many distrcits the unfairness can be massive.

and that is talking about two-person contests .

And once we get into three-, four-, five-cornered election contests, the variance becomes big-time.

From Confederation (1867) on, many districts have seen three-way or more contests. A third party ran in the very first election after Confederation. Its presence in many districts, in addition to candidates of the two big parties, meant three-way races. It denied either major party a majority of votes (overall), according to one source. so already false-majority result! FPTP historical dominance should not be over-started From start, Block voting was used to elect two or more MPs in each federal election to 1970 and to elect some MLAs in every round of provincial elections until the 1990s.


================

both STV and MMP are used by just a relatively few countries.

list PR is most common among PR countries.


Back in 1911, John H. Humphreys in his book simply titled Proportional Representation gives a "state of the world of PR" round-up.

At that time he listed these PR systems being in use (or having been in use):

"single voting" in Japan (SNTV)

Belgian PR

Swedish PR

Finland PR

Bale [Bali?] PR p. 114 125 195 387 (I have not seen what he said yet)

STV as already used in Denmark, South Africa (Johannesburg city and Senate election), Tasmania.


Cumulative Voting, Limited Voting is also mentioned as having been used enough to have practical experience to report on. but he likely gives them only faint praise.


single-winner majoritarian systems -- two-round voting, IRV are also discussed.


FPTP and Block Voting (what he called "plural voting") are disparaged of course


plural voting (what we call block voting) was perceived rightly as being unfair as it allowed a voter in one district to cast multiple votes while in other districts where just one member was elected each voter had just one vote.

(He is referring to Britain but mix of MMDs with single-member districts, FPTP with Block Voting, occurred often in Canada history too -- AB 1909-1921, MB 1914-1920, BC 1875-1980!, ON 1914-1928 ish, SK 1920s-1940 ish, NS, NB and NL as well.

(PEI with all MMDs from 1860s to 1990s! never used Block Voting I say offhand. The post/seat system was its style.)


in interesting parallel of our Court Challenge (the court case pending in October/November 2023 on whether or not FPTP is actually fair enough to be constitutional)

he wrote

"Mr. Harcourt's Plural Voting Bill, a highly complex measure to give effect to the principle of one man one vote The bill was strongly opposed on the ground that the reform was partial in characgter [like FVC's stand against Trudeau saying he wants to change to IRV]

If, said the opponents of the bill, it is unfair that one elector should have twelve votes whilst another elector has but one, it is equally unfair that the vote of an elector in one constituency should be twelve times as valuable as the vote of an elector in another constituency."

[whether constituency is meant to be district or voting block is not clear - either way the statement holds -

a Liberal in an Alberta riding today has zero direct representation;

more poignantly, a Green voter in an Alberta riding today has zero direct representation,

a People's Party or Communist Party voter today has zero direct and zero indirect representation;

while a Conservative voter in Alberta (but outside Edm-Strathcona) has oodles of direct and indirect representation among Alberta MPs and across the country (barring PEI and central Toronto).


The point of the Court Challenge is -- sure everyone has one vote but if half the votes are cast aside and elect no one, as they are, there is no equal value. same as Humphreys was saying back in 1911]


Humphreys continued:

The justice of the argument [agaisnt Block Voting]must be admitted, and explains why the rejection of the Plural Voting Bill by the House of Lords aroused comparatively little public feeling.

Yet the rejection of this Bill has focussed attention upon the deficiencies of our franchise laws and the eyes of all politicians are turning towards that more comprehensive measure of electoral reform which cannot be indefinitely postponed.

Such a measure has been categorically promised by Mr. Asquith on more than one occasion. So far back as 1908... [prepeat of Trudeau saying 2015 would be last...]


"what are the lines on which a truly effective [ER] scheme can be framed?...

It may be assumed that an effective scheme must deal with three problems:

[Britian in 1911 suffered under handicaps that it (and Canada) no longer suffer from, although PR is still un-achieved.]

- franchise (including registration) [at the time Britian had 20 different basis on which a voter might gain the right to vote - our present practice -- (almost-) universal adult suffrage -- is immeasurably simpler]

- redistribution [he meant changes to ensure the same voter-to-member ratio across the country, which is already done (mostly) in Canada. grouping of single-member districts into MMDs would also fall under this term.]

-three-cornered contests [today five-cornered contests are common].


Humphreys wrote that any fear that changes to electoral system may allow "the most numerous class in the country to monopolize representation may be met by linking the [change] with a system of election that shall give due representation to minorities." [PR]


One might paraphrase Humphreys to say that

any PR scheme established in Canada would have to decide on three basic questions plus more minor ones:


general system --

district list PR or provincial-level list PR

district STV,

AMS (where top-up is sub-provincial regional or provincial at largest)

RUPR (mixed member STV/FPTP with list PR top-up -- sub-provincial regional or provincial at largest))

(Constitutionally votes cannot mix from province to province so that excludes NZ's MMP, at least not without changes)


redistricting -

some list PR systems may require province-wide districts

district list PR, district STV and RUPR calls for MMDs;

MMP calls for larger SMDs unless additional members are added to provide top-up.


size of MMDs if any --

would they all have consistent DM or varying as in system where pre-existing units (cities, counties etc.) are used;

would SMDs be retained in the North of each province? (Single-member ridings would be retained in the Territories)


issue of handling of casual vacancies --- different models available - byelection, countback, etc.

type of STV used, if any (surplus vote transfer method - whole vote, Gregory etc.)

type of list PR (Saint Lague, D'Hondt, etc.)


ER might also include guaranteed Indigenous representation (but still within each province is easiest Constitutionally) various models could be applied -- NZ's overlaid Maori districts create two parallel district systems (that mix together for the top-up). (Likely Canada's PR would have no overall top-up)


ER might also include guaranteed Women representation (but still within each province is easiest Constitutionally) various models could be applied.

Ethnic and racial fairness would be achieved through PR at least for consituencies that have say more than 10 percent of population. Indigenous population of 3 percent of our population, spread from coast to coast to coast, need help to be guaranteed 10 seats in a 338-seat HofC.


Those are factors that will have to be solved for a new PR scheme.


Our job is comparatively easier -- back in 1911 Humphreys and others were still fighting against those who were defending Block Voting for some and FPTP for others.


===================================

0 views

Recent Posts

See All

Early Labour culture

Clarissa Mackie "Elizabeth's Pride A Labor Day story"    Bellevue Times Dec. 5, 1913

Comments


bottom of page