Until recently, everyone knew exactly what would happen in an Alberta provincial election.
The expectation was that Albertans would vote and that the outcome would be a guaranteed conservative victory.
That’s no longer the case.
“It’s only recently that we’ve had competitive elections in Alberta, University of Calgary political scientist Lisa Young told Livewire Calgary last year.
This change has many Albertans questioning how we choose our elected leaders.
In the United States, a growing number of Americans believe that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump.
Fortunately, while many Albertans are questioning the rules of how elections are run, only a small but vocal minority believe that our elections are rigged.
First Past the Post
Many Canadians–especially young people–are frustrated with the first past the post (FPTP) system used to choose our leaders.
FPTP is an electoral system in which winners take all within a riding or constituency, even if the winner doesn’t get a majority of votes.
And that latter fact pisses off a lot of Albertans!
Justin Trudeau tapped into this frustration by promising that the 2015 federal election would be the last conducted under the first-past-the-post process. This promise helped mobilize young voters into the “red wave” that launched his first government.
Since then, two provincial and federal elections have been held using a first-past-the-post process. Nothing has changed.
As a result, we can have governments elected that did not win the overall popular vote and where the votes of many Canadians do not count.
For example, suppose you’re a Green Party supporter in Alberta, an NDP supporter in New Brunswick, a Liberal voter in Saskatchewan, or a Conservative voter in downtown Toronto. In those cases, your vote has never elected someone representing you and may not for quite some time.
It’s no wonder voter apathy is on the rise.
Arguments For and Against Reform
There are two ways to judge an existing or proposed electoral system.
First off, we have to look at the fundamental issue of fairness. Does the system yield a result that is broadly representative and fair to voters?
Secondly, we need to consider the downstream effects. What kind of politics and governments are likely to emerge from the system?
The ongoing debate about electoral reform in Canada isn’t just about choosing the best system. It’s also about how we should go about making that decision.
A citizens’ assembly– a group of people selected by lottery from the general population to deliberate reforms– could help get past partisan influences and help build a broad consensus.
But, you can imagine the fierce partisan disagreements each party would make to preserve their current advantage.
But that doesn’t mean electoral reform is a Pandora’s box that should remain forever closed. We need to consider the potential impact of opening it.
Supporters of proportional representation argue that our current first-past-the-post system is fundamentally unfair because the distribution of seats in the legislature doesn’t perfectly match the national vote. They believe moving to proportional representation could encourage more cross-party cooperation and coalition governments.
However, there are three challenges with a proportional representation system.
- It gives more central control to the party leadership and dilutes the autonomy of the local candidate to represent his or her constituents. This encourages partisanship as it creates incentives for candidates to play to their base as opposed to creating a Big Tent that represents all the people they represent.Â
- It paves the way for smaller parties—potentially more extreme ones—to gain seats. With a seat in Parliament, an extremist party would have a larger platform to promote its ideas and could end up in a position where other parties have to cater to its views to pass legislation.
- In addition to extremist parties, there’s concern that proportional representation could lead to the creation of numerous niche or regional parties. This splintering could be concerning in a country as large and regionally diverse as Canada.
While some reformers prioritize proportionality over everything, demanding that the number of representatives exactly match the percentage of votes a party receives, others believe incorporating some form of ranked ballot will improve proportionality but not concentrate so much power in party leadership.
Many Canadians are uncomfortable with our FTFP system that allows a party that has the support of less than half of Canadians to wield near absolute power to dictate national public policy.
Canadians didn’t invent FPTP; we inherited the voting system from the British, as did other former colonies. There have been no real changes to the system put in place over a century ago.
So, what is keeping us from modernizing our system for choosing leaders?
Political Support For Electoral Reform, Unless You are in Power!
Partisan dynamics play a huge role in maintaining the status.
Underdogs generally support reforms; those in power, not so much.
The changing views of leaders in Wildrose country illustrate this point.
In 2015, Alberta’s then-Wildrose leader, Danielle Smith and Alberta NDP leader, Rachel Notley, supported electoral reform and proportional representation. This was in their self-interest, as both were leading smaller parties that were perceived as not having a chance to form government.
However, when it became clear that Notley could form the government–because of a Wildrose and Progressive Conservative vote split–the NDP quietly dropped pro-rep from their platform before the spring election.
After the election that year, Danielle Smith was upset that FPTP gave Notley a “false majority.”
Fast-forward to 2024, and Danielle Smith, now the UCP leader and Premier, has dropped her calls for reforms. Not surprisingly, Smith is mum on the subject of FPTP now that it gives her a huge advantage.
How Do We Fix What’s Broken?
Despite public support, implementing reforms isn’t easy, mainly because the party in power has benefited from FPTP voting. They gained power by winning under FPTP; why would they change the rules now?
Governing parties would rather have all the power or none than consider power-sharing agreements, coalitions, or confidence and supply agreements with other parties.
The current FPTP system means that elections are generally opportunities to eliminate bad leaders, candidates, or parties instead of voting for good leaders and policies.
While there likely is no perfect voting system, incorporating more proportionality means that the average voter is better represented and their votes matter.
Each system prioritizes one value over another. Achieving the optimal balance between proportionality (fairness) and the relative power of local representatives versus party leaders is complicated and can only be achieved through broad dialogue.
So, as we ponder the future of our electoral system, let’s remember to weigh all these factors. After all, it’s not just about picking the best system but also about how we make that decision and its potential impact on our beloved province and nation.
But one thing is clear: it’s time to let go of the unfair British FPTP system.
To learn more about types of PR systems, visit Fair Vote Canada
