Finding a Cure for Electoral Dysfunction

On electoral reform and ... Hey, wait, where are you going? Come back! It's important, we're told!

Canada's first-past-the-post voting system (FPTP) has a bad rap for being unrepresentative of voter will, and for favouring the two natural governing parties, the Conservatives and Liberals. Not surprisingly, those two parties have little to say on that matter, while the NDP and Green party are both advocating for proportional representation (PR) at the ballot box. Torontoist's primer on the leaders' electoral reform ambitions lays out the stakes for each party, and suggests the issue could force its way into the House of Commons if Jack Layton capitalizes on unprecedented poll numbers. “If the NDP stick to their guns, the surprising spike in their popularity could mean it happens sooner rather than never,” say the staff. Since the NDP would be the only party in Parliament without a stake in preserving FPTP, the onus would be entirely on it to make the case for adopting a new system.

That's a change that Kate Heartfield of the Ottawa Citizen would embrace, as she derides the status quo for giving Canadians living in slam-dunk ridings little incentive to vote if their member is a shoo-in the second the writ is dropped. “Our system reflects the diversity of Canadians geographically, but not ideologically,” bemoans Heartfield. “And that's just stupid, because what I want from my government has a lot more to do with my ideology than my postal code.” The U.K. will hold a referendum on electoral reform next month, and if the country that gave birth to the Westminster system of Parliament and FPTP elections can consider incorporating proportional representation, then, Heartfield says, there's no good reason why its Commonwealth progeny can't.

The British referendum was one of the conditions for the Liberal Democrats to support the Conservatives in a coalition government (foreshadowing for Canada, perhaps?), but it seems headed to kaibosh the proposed “alternative voting” that would mix PR and FPTP. The Financial Times' Philip Stephens suggests voters are more inclined to support what they know, but if they voted “yes,” it would mark “an incremental but worthwhile improvement in the workings of the nation’s democracy.” Sure, coalitions and hung governments would proliferate under the proposed system. But if those are becoming de rigueur with FPTP, then the main case against switching systems, Stephens argues, is nullified.