Since it’s conception in 1867, Canada’s democratic foundation has been built upon that of the United Kingdom as a parliamentary democracy. With strong traditions and a firm root in history, today Canada has full autonomy and exists as a modern single-member plurality democracy n the world stage. Yet democracy as it is known in Canada is beginning to show flaws; low voter turnout both provincially and federally, a domination of white, upper-middle class men representing a diverse population, an the distribution of seats that do not match the actual popular vote all contribute to Canada’s ‘democratic deficit’. An electoral system is supposed to “confront all of the ‘deeper realities’ of the social structure, of a political culture, or of ethnic and ideological divisions” (Lijphart, 19). It can be argued that Canada’s use of single-member plurality, or first-past-the-post electoral system is not confronting these ‘deeper realities’ Lijphart mentions, and is not allowing Canadian citizens to fairly voice “every opinion, however absurd, even monstrous [as] it may appear”. The representation of these opinions is what drives the political system in Canada ; it is one of the fundamental cornerstones in western democracy. The obvious answer to Canada’s ‘democratic deficit’ is that the electoral system must be changed to better represent Canadians. Proportional representation is the foremost solution, yet it is not so simple. What types of PR are there, and would work best in Canada? Does Canada really need electoral reform ? There are no definitive answers; the single-member plurality vs. proportional representation debate has long been one to divide Canadians. But something must be done to restore democracy in Canada before it fractures further, and proportional representation may just be the answer.

   Ernest Nasville is quoted as saying in 1865, “in a democratic government, the right off decision belongs to the majority, but the right of representation belongs to all” . This is the principle upon which proportional representation is founded. Under Canada’s current system, candidates are elected through the use of constituencies that divide Canada into ridings, and out of all candidates nominated, a single one is elected by a majority of the votes . Proportional representation is fundamentally similar, but very different in how it goes about the electing of officials. Canada’s use of the single-member plurality system leads proponents to state that its greatest advantage is the firm, stable government it produces . First-past-the-post, also known as the plurality system, operates as a ‘winner-takes-all’ situation . It is a list system, where the votes benefit the single candidate only. Each member of the electorate votes for only one candidate, and the votes are then tallied to determine which candidate garnered the most, thus determining a winner in that riding. How well a party did during an election is based on the total number of candidates, or ‘seats’ the party controls . The obvious problem with this system, and one that is fueling much of the debate for electoral reform is that a candidate may win by five thousand or more votes, but also by only five votes. In this situation, a large part of the electorate has voted for another candidate they believe to better represent their values and opinions, yet will be discounted with the end result. The assumption of Canada’s plurality system is that a clear result is needed to form a functioning government; the ‘winner-takes-all’, and more times than not a majority government is formed from an electorate that voted for a minority with greater representation for smaller parties . Proportional representation, in all forms, is an attempt to reduce this disparity that is plaguing Canadian politics.

   Proportional representation may be broken down into several sub-categories, each with their unique characteristics, which may be combined or left separate to come to a model appropriate for a certain country. There is the list-proportional representative system, where the electorate does not vote for a particular candidate, but instead for a party. Based upon the proportion of popular vote a party receives, a pre-formed list submitted by the party is used to select the winning candidates from that party based on their position on the list . The benefits of a list-proportional system is that there is not only a high degree of proportionality, but also that nearly all votes count in some way or another towards electing an official ; the concept of ‘wasted votes’ is all but forgotten. The mixed proportional member system is a combination of the list-proportionality system, and first-past-the-post from the single-member plurality subset. In nations such as Scotland, Wales, and New Zealand where it is used, anywhere from 50-60% of seats are given out using first-past-the-post, and the rest distributed on the list-proportionality system . There is argument that the mixed proportional member system is not actually a form of proportional representation; it offends the very basis that proportional representation is based on, that being that candidates may be elected without needing to win a majority of the electoral votes , however, “it is nearly impossible… to elect a person whom the Party organization does not want, and quite impossible to reject one whom the party does want” . Mixed proportional member systems are considered to be a base of compromise in nations where there is disagreement over the proportional representation, or single-member plurality systems.

   Single transferable vote is similar to the list-proportional system in its use of multi-member ridings, yet differs in that it allows the electorate to vote for more than one candidate . It places emphasis on voting and representation more than anything; the electorate ranks candidates on the ballot in order of preference, and whichever candidate in a given riding reaches the preset ‘quota’, is the winner. However, any excess votes above and beyond what is needed to win that seat are then redistributed to the second preference of voters, and this continues until all seats are filled . This system allows the electorate to not only choose a political party, but also choose between candidates of a same party that may run in a single riding . In this system, the electorate is left to decide whether the representations from an election should follow party ideology or mandate, or personal interest . Single transferable vote works in such a way that the electorate can “express degrees of preference for all candidates and parties based on their positions on a number of different issues, local as well as national or province-wide” . The electorate also gets exactly the candidates they elected, in the seats they gave to a certain party ; there is no disparity between what the popular vote indicates about seat distribution, and what the final distribution actually is, such as in a system that utilizes first-past-the-post. This system is often criticized with being too complicated, but in Alberta from the 1920’s to the 1960’s was used provincially with success .

   These subsets of proportional representation are not exclusive, however. Many countries come up with their own version of proportional representation; either a combination of list and mixed, or single transferable vote and mixed have been common in some European nations . The characteristics of proportional representation systems are also interchangeable; a suggestion for Canada has been made to keep the constituencies which sometimes are abolished in proportionally representative systems, and, following the lines of a mixed proportional member system, elect government officials based on a percentage from constituencies following the first-past-the-post system, and the remaining from a proportional system . William Irvine, who first suggested this for Canada, believed that such a system would “overcome the lack of representation of important segments of opinion in party caucuses and the Cabinet, as well as to avoid the sense of regional-ethnic alienation that stems from the current situation” . It is here that the benefits of a proportional representation system, in whatever form, begins to become apparent; the ‘democratic deficit’ of Canada is largely in part due to a system that no longer, and perhaps never did, meet the voters needs.

   For proponents of proportional representation, the greatest benefit is simple that the electorate receives the government they vote for. Under a purely proportionally represented system, if a party were to receive twenty percent of the popular vote, they would receive twenty percent of the seats . This would all but guarantee the elimination of situations such as the 1977 Canadian federal election; with only 38.5% of the votes, the Liberal Party of Canada controlled 51.5% of the seats, while the Progressive Conservative Party had 18.8% of the vote, but only held 6.6% of the seats . Proportional representation would allow smaller parties such as the New Democrats, or Green Party to sit in the seats the popular vote allots them, instead of larger parties controlling them through the first-past-the-post system. Proportional representation is not perfect, though. While Rae’s 1967 study found that proportional representation systems are more proportional than those of a single-member plurality, Katz argues that single transferable vote is the least proportional of these . While this on the surface seems like a detriment to the implementation of a single-transferable system in Canada as some argue for, the lower proportionality comes from the riding size . More votes are likely to be wasted in large ridings than in smaller ridings; Canada would still benefit from largely from the use of proportional representation, but a re-drawing of the ridings would be required to make up for this slight . Regardless of both riding size and type of proportional system used, however, first-past-the-post is still less proportional and thus less representative of Canadian citizens.

   Not only does proportional representation allow for the election of smaller parties which would otherwise not gain seats though the use of first-past-the-post, it allows for the representation of minority groups within Canada to easier hold office. This leads to one of the main arguments against the use of proportional representation, being that just because a group within Canada is a minority they will all automatically have different political ideologies than other groups, requiring better representation of these views. Thus, the debate over proportional representation is void to some as if these groups have no specific ideologies that are common only to them; someone who is not of the same gender, ethnicity, or religion may represent them . This is, in a narrow view, correct. Yet the greater picture is being missed with this argument, especially in a nation as diverse and multicultural as Canada. Proportional representation is meant to expand the scope of ideas and views presented in government to more closely mirror those of the population as a whole . It is undeniable in Canadian society that certain groups are likely to experience situations such as racism, or poverty, and thus, while not exclusive, their political ideologies may tend to be more similar than to those of white, upper-middle class men. As the purpose of all government, in whatever democratic system it may take, is to represent all people and their wishes as the electorate, it is imperative that the electoral system provides means for the diversity of that electorate to be recognized. Taking this argument a step further, proportional representation will allow for the nomination of more diverse candidates for the electorate to choose from . Instead of the traditionally conservative practice employed by political parties today because of the high stakes of an ‘all or nothing’ single-member plurality system, it may be easier for parties to nominate candidates that more accurately reflect the electorate .

   Another benefit of a proportional representative system is, as Nick Loenen points out, the higher parliamentary accountability. Provincially, Loenen argues the government in its current state has lost all legislative credibility because the people elected to represent the citizens, Member’s of Legislative Assembly, do not represent the wishes of their constituents, but instead toe the party line . Much of the power in the provincial first-past-the-post system ends up in the Premier’s Office; non-elected political appointees make decisions that should be left to the elected officials . To Loenen, the largest democratic deficit Canada faces is the concentration of power at the top; “it imperils responsible government” . The solution is proportional representation- where a minority of the vote will not give a party a seat majority . By moving to a system of proportional representation, government will be moving towards a system of “inclusion, partnership, negotiation, and coalition building” . Proportional representation could allow Members of Legislative Assembly, and Members of Parliament to move away from the party solidarity that characterizes government, and to being responsible to their citizens first . Under this system, politicians are more likely to not just follow the wishes of their constituents, but also uphold a higher standard. Instead of resorting to the smear tactics and attack ads characteristic of today’s elections in Canada, candidates and politicians alike will be forced to win public favor by “organizing political clubs, [and] by sharing the party’s representation with all classes of the party’s membership” . Due to the way the proportional system works, it is more likely that only a profound change in electorate opinion could change the make up of the government, rendering the process less affected by slander and trickery; thus strengthening democracy in Canada not only politically, but morally .

   In short, proportional representation leads to a better democratic process in Canada. In its current state, as a single-member plurality, using the first-past-the-post method, Canada’s ‘democratic deficit’ has begun to reintroduce the debate over electoral reform. As a previous colony of the United Kingdom, Canada’s democratic process is rooted in those traditions, and there is often objection to the introduction of any other system. Yet proportional representation would help to solve what plagues Canada’s democracy; the electorate would receive the government they voted for, there would be a higher proportion of candidates, and thus elected members from minorities, whether they be gender, ethnic or religious, and a higher level of accountability would be experienced by all in the democratic process. Instead of large single party majorities in government, parties would be forced to work together and represent the electorate before their party views, as well as smaller parties would receive seats they are otherwise denied under a first-past-the-post-system. Through whatever form of proportional representation Canada chose, single transferable vote, list-proportional representative, or mixed member proportional, there would be a higher degree of proportion between vote count and seats than in a single-member plurality . For those still skeptical of the benefits of a proportionally represented system, one need only look to Alberta’s recent provincial election where 72 of 83 seats went to one party under the single-member plurality system currently in use. If a proportional representative system were in place, the governing Progressive Conservatives would control only 44, whereas the Alberta Liberals and New Democrat Party would combine for 29. The Green Party, often ignored and left out of debates and never having held a seat, would sit in 4 . Canada’s ‘democratic deficit’ is splitting the country; minorities are under-represented, voter turnout is the lowest it’s ever been, and there is no accountability in government. While there will never be consensus on the single-member plurality vs. proportional representation debate, there should be agreement on the fact that something must be done before Canada’s democracy splits further, and reaches a point beyond repair.

Works Cited

Dyck, Rand. Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches. 5th. U.S.A: Thomas Canada Limited, 2007.

Gibson, Gordon. Fixing Democracy in Canada. Canada: 2003.

Hoag, Clarence, and George Hallett, Jr. Proportional Representation. New York: J. J. Little and Ives Company, 1926.

Law Commission of Canada, "Reviewing Electoral Systems and Reform Proposals in Canada."Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada. 2004.

Loenen, Nick. Citizenship and Democracy: A Case for Proportional Representation. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1997.

"Low voter Turnout in Alberta being questioned." CBC. ca. 05 03 2008. CBC. 14 Mar 2008 .

Lijphart, Arend, and Berndard Grofman. Choosing An Electoral System: Issues and Alternatives. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1984.

Pilon, Dennis. Canada's Democratic Deficit: Is Proportional Representation The Answer?. Toronto: 2001.

Schagen, J. van. Electoral systems and representative government. Netherlands: Ars Aequi Libri, 2000.