Living in a country that gives all its citizens of age the right to vote is a privilege that, as can be seen in our current events, is a gift for all Canadians. The system we have is based on dividing Canada into a few hundred regions and having each region choose who they want to represent them in the House of Commons. This has been the case since Confederation, when 180 ridings and three parties (Liberals, Liberal-Conservatives, and Anti-confederates) chose to give the Liberal-Conservatives a majority government.
Like any high school or university election, the requirement to win a seat in the House of Commons in a given riding is to have the most votes out of all the other candidates. The representative who has more votes than any of the other contenders wins a seat, regardless of actual number of votes. Unlike government decision-making where a majority (>50%) must be obtained, an MP must simply surpass other contenders in the number of votes to get elected.
One benefit of this method is that it allows anyone who has an interest in representing their riding, whether as part of a political party or as an independent, to have the chance of winning a seat in the House of Commons. While not everyone’s views in a riding is necessarily represented, the majority of opinions in that riding (whether it be liberal, conservative, communist, etc) will still be heard in the House of Commons.
Another benefit of the current voting system is that it makes it easier for voters to know who is in their riding. They are given a list of candidates, each with their own platform representing their views. Candidates in political parties also, in addition to their own riding platform, promote the party platform featuring the overall goals for Canada. Therefore, voters can vote for who they believe best represents their own views for their riding and all of Canada at the same time.
One argument against the “First past the Post” type of election is that some political parties tend to get a higher proportion of seats than the popular vote. For example, in the most recent 2011 election, the Conservatives got a majority government with under 40% of the popular vote. However, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. With the current system, it is easier to form a majority government. In fact, out of 41 elections since confederation, 26 have resulted in majority governments. Furthermore, it is typically found that the leader of the opposition also receives more seats than the popular vote; this means that in the event of a minority government, each party will both have to gain the trust of all opposing parties including smaller parties like the NDP and Bloc Quebecois.
There always tends to be a debate as to whether a majority government is a positive or a negative form of government. While majority governments have been found to not always represent the opinion of everyone, since they have enough seats to take full control of the House of Commons, majority governments tend to be more stable. Issues and resolutions can be moved through the House of Commons much faster and with more efficiency whereas a minority government has to have parties come together in agreement before decisions are made. In an ideal world, this would be better for making decisions that represent all of Canada. In practice, however, it can be seen that minority governments slow down the process of getting bills passed through the House of Commons thus resulting in a less productive government.
One proposed change for a new system has been to make the House of Commons proportional to the popular vote. For example, in the last election, because the Conservatives got 40% of the popular vote, they should only receive 40% of the seats in the House of Commons. A few problems with this proposition are as follows:
Firstly, the decision as to which of the seats in the House of Commons would go to which representatives. As mentioned before, in each riding, people are voting for who they want to represent them in the parliament. This is beneficial when the riding’s candidate is someone who focuses on representing their riding as opposed to following their party leader. By having PR, there will be no representation of certain less populated regions; this can cause problems when deciding funding or regulations which vary from province to province and city to city.
Secondly, this proposal makes it harder to form a majority government. This means that parliament will continually be in a minority government and therefore inefficient, unless parties create coalitions, which, in any case, would still have the same problems as a majority government.
Overall, our current election system is more efficient. It is important to keep the system that results in regional representation and is more likely to have a majority government. Changing our electoral system to a new system based on popular vote would lead to issues based on representation and lead to inefficient governance. In other words, “First Past the Post” makes for a better national host.
Leave a Reply