What's is wrong with the current system?

Dennis Pilon - UVic Political Scientist - The Case Against First Past The Post.

David Chudnovsky - NDP MLA on problems with the electoral system..

Andrew Coyne - Macleans writer - Case Against First Past The Post.

Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan - Our Benign Dictatorship

Dennis Pilon -UVic Political Scientist:

• The current system of "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) does a terrible job of translating votes into seats in a proportional manner. Parties' share of seats is often wildly different from their share of the votes. As a result, a legislature almost never reflects the broad political divisions of the electorate. When 40% of the vote does not transfer into 40% of the seats (sometimes it gets 25% of the seats and sometimes it gets 65% of the seats) how can voters' opinions be effectively represented in the legislature?

• In the 150 federal and provincial elections since 1960, only 18 (a pathetic 12%) have been even remotely proportional. And in the 13 British Columbia elections since 1960, only one (7.7%) was proportional.

In a democratic country, it is simply unacceptable to use an electoral system that does such an appalling job of reflecting the diverse political views of the population in the legislative assembly.

• Under FPTP, both in British Columbia and across Canada, we have seen political parties lose the popular vote and yet win a majority of seats in the Legislature!

• Since 1966, it has occurred in six provinces:

o Quebec in 1966 and 1998;
o British Columbia in 1996;
o New Brunswick in 1970, 1974, and 2006;
o Saskatchewan in 1986;
o Nova Scotia in 1970; and
o Newfoundland & Labrador in 1989.

It is simply unfair in a free and democratic society with the values of peace, order and good government to have a system where a party can lose an election yet form a majority government.

• FPTP is so inaccurate it often cannot even get the order of the parties vote share correct when assigning seats. For instance, in the 1993 federal election, the Bloc Quebecois came fourth in the popular vote. However, it won the second greatest number of seats and became the Official Opposition.

• This has occurred in 8 provinces and at the federal level:

o Alberta in 1989, 1967 and 1963;
o British Columbia in 1996;
o Federally in 2008, 2006, 2004, 2000, 1997, 1993, 1984, 1979, 1963 and 1962;
o New Brunswick in 2006, 1974 and 1970;
o Newfoundland & Labrador in 1989;
o Nova Scotia in 2003 and 1970;
o Quebec in 1998 and 1966;
o Saskatchewan in 1999 and 1986; and
o Ontario in 1985 and 1975.

How is the current system representative of everyone's views when it cannot even put the parties' vote shares into the correct order when electing MLAs?

• In British Columbia, of the 13 'majority' governments since 1960, only one actually received a majority of the popular vote. In fact, three of these artificial majority governments (1996, 1972, and 1960) were elected with less than 40% of the popular vote!

• When a political party is given more than half of the seats with less than half of the popular vote, more people voted for the other parties than the governing party. Yet the government can do what it wants, when it wants, and there is no way for opposition parties to effectively represent the political views of their voters when the government has a majority, because the government will always have absolute power in the legislature.

• In the 2005 provincial general election, 858,001 votes (48.7% of all valid votes!) were did not contribute to electing an MLA. In a sense, they were "wasted" because they were all cast for candidates who were not elected. Over the past four provincial elections, an average of 50% of all valid votes have been wasted in this way.

• As a result, these voters do not have an MLA in the Legislative Assembly who represents their political views. Instead, they are represented by a single MLA they did not vote for.

• Under BC-STV, very few votes are wasted. If your first choice is not elected, your vote is transferred at full value to your second or subsequent choices until all MLAs are elected in your district.

• In the 2005 provincial general election, 15.1% of all valid votes cast (266,265 votes) were surplus votes that, while cast for the winning candidate, were not necessary for the election of that MLA. Had these votes not been cast, the MLA would have been elected anyway.

• Under BC-STV, the portion of these surplus votes that is not needed to elect your first choice (say, 25% of your vote) is transferred to your second and subsequent choices until all candidates are elected.

• The total of all wasted and surplus votes are referred to as "ineffective" votes because they do not "effect" the election of any MLA. Over the past four elections, an average of over two-thirds of all votes cast are ineffective. Two-thirds!

It is simply inexcusable to retain an electoral system that only translates an average of under one-third of all votes cast into the party standings in the Legislative Assembly.

• In British Columbia, turnout has declined from 75% in 1991 to 62% in 2005.

• In federal elections, turnout has declined from 75% in 1988 to 59% in 2008.

• In Malta, turnout in the most recent election was 93%

• In Ireland, turnout in the most recent election was 69% (which is low for Ireland)

Isn't it odd that when you know your vote is more likely to count, you seem more likely to actually vote?

• Under the current system, vote splitting is a very common phenomenon. Where two parties of similar political persuasions "split the vote" of potential supporters and cause the election of a candidate from a different political party - who often is elected with far less than a majority of the popular vote in the district.

• In 2005, 46% of elected MLAs were elected with less than half of the vote in their districts.

• This leads to many MLAs being elected with a very low percentage of the vote in their districts. And because there is only one MLA per electoral district in the current system, they have 100% of the power and often leave a majority of voters with an MLA they did not vote for.

For example:

Election % of All MPs/MLAs Elected with Less than 50% of the Vote in their Districts Lowest Percent of Vote Obtained by an "Elected" MLA or MP
2005 British Columbia 46% 37.5%
2008 Federal 62% 29.2%
2001 British Columbia 24% 37.1%
1996 British Columbia 66% 31.9%
1991 British Columbia 73% 34.0%

• Under BC-STV, there is no such thing as "vote-splitting." Casting a vote for your favourite candidate does not lead to the election of your least-favoured candidate. If your first choice candidate does not get elected, your vote is then transferred to your second and subsequent choices until all seats are filled in your district. And because all candidates in your district must be elected with equal levels of popular support, you will no longer have MLAs being elected with very low levels of popular support having the same power as MLAs who were elected with massive support in their districts. Every MLA is accountable to similar numbers of voters.

• Unless you are fortunate enough to live in the one-third of seats that are actually "competitive" (where the margin of victory is within +/ - 5%) and could be won by either party, your vote does not contribute to the election of an MLA because: either your vote was cast for a party that lost, or your preferred candidate won but did not need your vote to win.

• And because each party only runs a single candidate in each single-member electoral district, supporters of a political party but not of the local candidate have two choices: either vote for an opposing party (and risk electing that party to office), or stay home and not vote (like the 42% of eligible voters in the last election).

• Under BC-STV, there are no safe seats. ALL seats are competitive. If one of your MLAs is not providing effective local representation, you can safely vote (through the order of choices on your ballot) for a different candidate or candidates of the same political party. There is no risk of voting against an incumbent MLA and electing another party to office.

• This is unfortunately very common under our current system. Instead of voting for the candidate they most prefer, voters often have to vote against a specific candidate by voting for a candidate with the "best shot" of defeating the candidate or party they least want to win. You are told that if you vote your principles you risk "splitting the vote" and electing a candidate or party you do not want to win.

• As a result, we are often forced to vote not for a smaller party candidate or independent we prefer, but for one of the major party candidates in order to ensure the other major party candidate does not get elected. Under the current systems, election campaigns are fought and won over smears, fear, and division instead of hope, ideas, and policy.

• Because under BC-STV your first choice vote is transferred to your second and subsequent choices if your first choice is defeated, there is no risk of splitting the vote and electing a candidate you do not approve of. You can give your preferred candidate your first choice and then other candidates you prefer your second and further choices. Under BC-STV you can finally cast a principled vote instead of a pragmatic vote.

• For a system designed to avoid minority governments, Canada has a terrible record of providing "strong and stable government." Nine of our last 18 federal elections have resulted in minority parliaments! Ireland, which uses STV, during the same period has had only six minority governments. Their governments on average last seven months longer than in Canada.

• Minority governments under our current electoral system are instable and shaky. Politicians know that under our current system, a small swing in the polls can lead to a massive swing in seats - including into majority government territory. Thus, when a party goes up just a few points in the polls, it will either call an election or bring down the government - all in an attempt to get the coveted majority. And under majority governments, politicians do what they want, when they want.

• Under BC-STV, minority governments will be much more stable. Because the results are proportional, there is no incentive to force an election if a party will only get a few more seats with a small change in the popular vote. As a result, they are far more likely to work with other parties instead of against them.

• Majority governments also occur under proportional representation systems like BC-STV. Tasmania has been using STV for one hundred years, and six of its last eight elections have resulted in single-party majority governments! The key difference is: under BC-STV, a party will get a majority government when a majority of the voters actually want it to. Under the current system, in 13 of the last elections, British Columbia has seen parties with an average of 45% of the vote receive an average of 65% of the seats! So, every majority government except one over the past 49 years has actually seen more voters vote against it than for it. How is that democratic?