The Single Transferable Vote System

In this essay I will assess the outcomes of Additional Member system, First Past the Post system and the Closed Party List system. The F-P-T-P system is used to elect the members of House of Commons and local government in England and Wales. Voters select candidates, and do so by marking his or her name with an ‘X’ on the ballot paper. This reflects the principle of ‘one person, one vote’. The Additional Members system is used in Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly, and Northern Ireland Assembly and Greater London assembly. It is a mixed system made up of F-P-T-P and party-list elements. The Regional party list (or the closed party list) is used to elect the

Representation inclusivity has therefore made large strides in provincial and federal parliaments, but elections remain the strongest way to increase inclusivity through the election of brand new members.

The 1996 provincial election of British Columbia, produced what was considered to be a “wrong-winner” scenario, in which the party that received a majority of the votes received significantly less than a majority of the seats available for representation. The falsely represented party and its supporters were understandably furious. As a result, many pushed for electoral reform to prevent a similar outcome in future elections. Campaigns, such as The Free Your Vote, aimed towards ensuring more accurate elections, but failed to produce any real change was made. Then in the 2001 election, the exact opposite happened; the party that had received a majority of the votes but had poor representation in the 1996 election had now received less than a majority of the votes but received a majority of the seats. Yet again, a “wrong-winner” had been named. The fundamental idea that a party and the number of

Another important reason that Canada should select a different election system is that the FPTP system has a large impact on smaller parties. According to Political Scientist Maurice Duverger’s Law, given enough time FPTP systems will eventually become a

Since party politics began in Canada, the style in which leaders are elected is comparable to a horse race. Using the single member plurality (SMP), more commonly referred to as “first past the post,” method of seat allocation in both the House of Commons and each province's Legislative Assembly, whoever gets the most votes is asked to form the government; this only takes into accounts the number of seats a party wins, not the overall popular vote. In a political system not limited to two parties, like the United States, many times over 50% of Canadians do not want the party that won, to win. In this current electoral system, votes are wasted, smaller parties are terribly misrepresented and, in some cases, a party with a lower percent of

This new system would be beneficial to Canada in many ways. The first change it would bring would be increasing the number of voter turnouts. When people realize that their vote will actually be more represented in government, they are more likely to vote and support smaller parties. Proportional representation allows for a fairer split of seats and gives more parties a chance to represent their citizens. Those people that are apathetic to casting votes on Election Day because of the inaccurate representation will see this problem alleviated. The vast majority of Canadians' votes are not accurately depicted with the government they’re trying to represent. Proportional representation voting systems work differently; by giving a party that gets 33% of the votes exactly 33% of the seats. The result is a Parliament that more accurate represents the preferences of the constituents. There have been many debates in Canada to use the proportional representation in upcoming elections. In 2004, British Colombia launched the first ever Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform, which brought together representatives to consult across the province on the electoral system. They recommended a change and a referendum was held in 2005. While the proposal won more than a majority (57 percent), it fell short of the 60 percent ‘super-majority’ threshold the

The majoritarian model is currently being used in Canadas political economy, however, Canada’s would be better off with a shift to the consensus model as it included all minority groups and represented the true meaning of democracy. The consensus model represented the people in a society by including minority groups, using a federal or decentralized government and a multi-party system. The consensus model ensured the inclusion of groups in plural societies, where this was absent under a majoritarian ruling. A majoritarian model of government only made decisions in the hands of a select few, whereas, in a consensus model the power was divided in a federal or decentralized government. Finally, a consensus model allowed for multiple parties to run for election under the multiparty system and voting was done under proportional representation. However, in a majoritarian government, there are two parties running for office which operated under a disproportional election.

Basically, voters select one candidate from their riding, just like in an SMP system, but they also place a vote for which party they would like to form the government. This second vote determines the amount of seats that each party gains proportional to the amount of votes they collected in the countries. The representatives from each party are then made up of the elected representatives from each riding (if that party was able to elect any) and other members selected by the leader1. An STV system, which is what the Citizen’s Assembly recommended to the people of BC, can be found in Ireland, Malta, and in some levels of government in Australia. Voters rank candidates according to their priorities, choosing as many as they wish. For example, a certain voter could select a Conservative as his or her first choice, a Liberal as the second, a New Democrat as third, and then cast no votes for the Green Party. When each a candidate reaches a certain quota of first place votes, they are elected, and the extra first place votes that they did not need are distributed to the other parties according to their overall ranking. If a second candidate is then elected, his or her extra votes are then distributed to the remaining parties, and so on . This system is rather complicated, especially when compared to our current system, but computerized voting systems have generally alleviated any problems.

The system that the Law Commission ultimately recommended was the mixed-member proportional electoral system. In the MMP system a portion of representatives, usually between 50 and 60 percent, are elected from single-member districts, similar to FPTP, with the remainder of seats being elected from party lists, based on the party’s share of the popular vote (Law Commission 22). Each voter gets to cast two votes, one for the party that they support and another for the representative member that they prefer. Party lists can be either closed, where voters are not able to influence the order of candidates, or open, where voters have the ability to influence the ranking of candidates. A threshold for representation is usually set in order to prevent fringe and extremist parties from gaining seats in government. This system is used in Germany, New Zealand, Venezuela and Lesotho (Joseph 113).

Today, Ontario and Quebec have maintained their 24 member senatorial status. The four Western provinces have 6 members each. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick both have 10 seats. Prince Edward Island was given 4 out of the original 24 Maritime senators. Together, Newfoundland and Labrador have a total of 6 members. Finally, Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories stand in the equation with 1 senator apiece. Along with the Senate`s original intentions, the principle of equality between the provinces is evidently lost. The Senate primarily fails because it was formerly created to balance out the representation by population which lies in the House of Commons however currently only seems to reinforce it. In fact, Canada’s central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, account for 60 percent of the seats in the House of Commons and almost half of the seats in the Senate at 46 percent.5 The inadequacy of regional representation is emphasized as the Canada West Foundation clearly states: “Canada is the only democratic federal system in the world in which the regions with the largest populations dominate both houses of the national legislature.“6 With an unelected Senate that no longer fulfills its role of equal regional representation and a House of Commons grounded on the representation of provinces proportional to their population, the legitimacy of Parliament has become a

One can come to a conclusion that plurality systems have a major flaw and that is inequality. Adopting a MMP would be a huge step forward in Canadian democracy. With a MMP system in place, more women would be elected to the legislature because it creates fairness. With more women in the legislature, it can make a substantial difference in the types of laws that may be proposed and passed. Another advantage MMP brings to Canada is instead of electing one member of the legislature in each small district, Canada would use larger districts to elect several members. To add to this advantage, the candidates that win the seats in these multi-member districts are determined by the proportion of votes each party receives. With Canada’s current electoral system, one citizen’s vote counts for less than another citizen’s vote. By changing to a MMP system, Canada can give more equality and fairness back to the citizens.

Canadian electoral system is largely based on the single member plurality (SMP) system which was inherited from its former British colonial masters. The system dates back to several years before the formation of the Canadian confederation. Some of the common features of the Canadian electoral system include election candidates to represent designated geographical areas popularly known as” ridings”, counting and tallying of the votes casted on the basis of the districts as opposed to the parties of the candidates (Dyck, 622). Finally, a candidate only needs a simple majority over the other candidates in order to be considered a winner, even if the winner has a small percentage of votes. This system has however been heavily criticized for its winner takes all way of judging victory. Critics argue that if the winner takes over the whole system, it may result into unfair representation of the various social groups, but it may also bring into power unstable minority participation in government. For example, a candidate can win even with barely 25% of all the votes casted, while the small parties may end up with no seats in the parliament.

Another voting system used is the Single Transferable Vote System. The idea is that people vote just for the candidates and not parties. Several candidates are put up in a

Under the Canadian constitution, the selection process of senators is done by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister who appoints officials. Ultimately, this method has gained an unpopularity and even a call to action to abolish Senate. However, Canadians should be engaging in the work of reconstructing our democratic institution. We should be able to trust our organizations by choosing the officials in them. In the study of the Senate, Bakvis (2001) argues, “an elected Senate would garner the greatest support, and in starting with a clean slate makes it easier to adopt [regional] representation” (p.72). With the availability of choosing representatives instead of the prime minister simply appointing senators, the face of the Senate of Canada can be designed to produce a more legitimate body by an electoral system.

For decades, Canadians have been defending their right to have a fair and open electoral system. Since its creation in 1867, Canada has been proud to call itself a true democratic country, but today there would be many people who disagree with this statement. The Canadian electoral system, which uses First Past The Post (FPTP), has come under scrutiny for not being as fair as it claims to be. Over the past couple of decades, many countries have switched their system to Proportional Representation (PR) or some form of it. Based on successful results in other nations, Canada’s current FPTP system should change to Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), which is a form of Proportional Representation, as it will allow for more fair elections. The intent of this paper is to outline how an electoral reform from First Past the Post to Proportional Representation or Mixed-Member Proportional, will lead to more confidence in the government, more accurate seat-vote percentage, and better overall representation of the population.