Electoral Reform

We’ve been hearing talk of “electoral reform” for years – decades even – here in Canada. On 5 May in England, voters will have an opportunity to participate in a referendum on changing their electoral system.

As is the case here (because our system is, for the most part, a direct adoption of the UK political system), British voters elect representatives using the first-past-the-post (FPTP) method.

In this method, ballots are counted and the candidate who has the more votes than any of the opponents wins the seat. More often than not, the winner does not garner a majority of the votes, causing some discontent among dissatisfied voters who claim that “more people voted against the winning candidate than for.

The problem with that view is that counting votes against a candidate does not result in the declaration of a winner using the “against” method. Except in cases of a clear majority, more votes will always be cast against the winner, but each of the “losers” still has fewer votes than the “winner.”

One idea that has received some attention over the past few years is a form of Proportional Representation, known as a Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP). It is a somewhat complicated hybrid of the FPTP system and a representational “list” system, in which a certain number of seats in the legislature are set aside for constituency representatives, and the remainder of seats reserved for individual parties.

Voters cast two votes: one for a local candidate, and one for the Party of their choice. The candidates that are declared winners take their seats. The remainder of the seats are filled from a list provided by each party, in direct proportion to the percentage of “Party” votes they receive.

This was proposed and defeated in Ontario in a 2007 referendum.

What is being proposed in the UK is known as an “Alternative Voting” (AV) system.

In the AV, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. Voters may indicate their ranking for all, some, or only one candidate.

When the ballots are counted, a candidate who receives a clear majority (50% plus 1) of the first-choice votes is declared the winner. If no candidate receives a clear majority, then the candidate(s) receiving the fewest votes is dropped, and second-choice votes are tallied, redistributed, and re-counted. Again, a candidate achieves a clear majority is declared winner.

And again, if there is no clear winner, the bottom candidate(s) is dropped, and the process continues until a winner is declared.

For example,

The results of the election are:

Candidate A = 35%
Candidate B = 18%
Candidate C = 22%
Candidate D = 25%

Candidate A has the most votes, but not a majority. Candidate B, with the fewest, is dropped. Your first choice was Candidate B, and your second was Candidate A.

The second-choice votes are re-distributed and re-counted, with the results being:

Candidate A = 43%
Candidate C = 27%
Candidate D = 30%

Candidate A has gained, but still does not have a clear majority, so Candidate C is dropped and the third-choice votes are re-distributed and re-counted.

Candidate A = 58%
Candidate D = 42%

Candidate A is declared the winner.

In the FPTP system, Candidate A would have also been declared the winner with less than a majority of votes; in the AV system Candidate A is the winner, but with a majority of votes.

The AV system claims to be more representative, but the results tend not to vary significantly from the FPTP system. Think about it: in the FPTP, Candidate ‘A’ can receive only 35% of the vote and still be declared the winner.

It is possible, in the AV system, that first place could change if the vote counts were exceptionally close between the two or three highest –scoring candidates.

This shouldn’t be a difficult system to adopt, either. This is similar to the systems most political parties use when electing a leader. One key difference is that instead of ranking all the candidates on one ballot, multiple ballots are cast, drawing the process out over the course of several hours at a convention.

In fact, there are countries that use such a system, with voters being required to return to the polls – sometimes several days later – to cast a second ballot if a winner is not declared on the first.

I think this system would benefit us here in Canada.

No type of electoral reform will ever make everyone happy. There will always be those whose votes were cast for a non-winning candidate.

But, by ranking our choices we at least get to indicate our second-, third- and even fourth- (or more) choices. If our first choice doesn’t win, perhaps our second choice will.

Of course, for this to work, people may need to be less rabid about their party affiliation or preferences. If your first choice was for a Liberal candidate, your second- and third- choices will, by necessity, be for one of the other parties.

As I see it, indicating your order of preference for the alternative choices still gives you some say in electing a representative.

It’s not perfect, but I don’t think we will ever devise a perfect system.


But… that’s just my opinion.