Is the Canadian Electoral System Representative of Democracy? An Interview with Professor Jonathan Rose, Queen’s University Political Studies
Rory Sullivan, External Affairs
February 17th, 2020
Democracy. We all know the definition—but what does it mean? To different people, it can mean different things. To some it represents equality, to others it represents political freedom. In Canada, we have the democratic right to express our political opinion through voting, as outlined in Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Voting can be seen as the ultimate democratic action – every citizen gets an equal say in the future of our nation. Or do we?
There are many people in Canada, and around the world, who would say that the current Canadian electoral system is not representative of democratic values. Under the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, a candidate simply needs to get the most votes to win their riding’s seat in the House of Commons— not the absolute majority of over 50 percent. This system can lead to many issues that could arguably be against the equality that democracy preaches.
Take Prince Edward Island as an example of how FPTF can promote unfair representation in elections. PEI can elect four Members of Parliament despite each of the ridings having less than 40 000 people. Compare this with Canada’s most populated riding, Edmonton-Wetaskiwin, where approximately 160 000 people will elect only one MP. The interests of those in PEI versus those in the Albertan riding will be unproportionally represented in the House of Commons, and therefore in our government.
Another one of the arguments against the FPTP system is that it unfairly favours large, mainstream parties, effectively ignoring minority interests and forcing citizens to vote strategically. In an interview with Dr. Jonathan Rose of the Queen’s University Department of Political Studies, he noted that, “our system does not tolerate differences well... this is by design to diminish the standings of smaller parties.” Though there were 20 parties registered in this past election, only a handful of them have ever been reasonably considered as viable options by the public. The current system distorts the relationship between the popular vote and seats gained, making certain parties more powerful despite the clear wishes of the people. In the 2019 election, the NDP received 15.9% of the popular vote, but only 7% of the seats while the Bloc Québécois won 9% of the seats with 7.7% of the vote.
This raises the concern that smaller voices are not being heard in the current system. Can we call a system democratic if citizens feel that their choice is limited?
Which prompts the question: what are the alternatives to this arguably undemocratic system?
Proportional representation (PR) is the system most mentioned when considering a substitute to the current system. Though PR varies around the world, many nations such as New Zealand, Sweden, and Germany, have successful implemented this type of electoral system.
Sweden uses a form of PR in which the citizen votes for the party on their ballot and the percentage of votes that a party receives proportionately translates to the number of seats they are awarded in the Riksdag (Swedish Parliament). However, to receive a seat then the party must receive at least 4% of the popular vote. In this past election the Liberal party won 33% of the popular vote, therefore they would have been awarded about 33% of the seats under Sweden’s PR system.
Dr. Rose says that if Canada were to implement PR, a system more similar to that of Germany’s Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) would be more realistic. Germany’s system is a combination of both electoral systems previously mentioned, FPTF and PR. Essentially the German people vote twice on their ballot; once for their local representative and then a second time for their desired party. Each of these sections on the ballot determine the fate of half of the seats in the Bundestag; 299 seats are determined by the first vote through voting for a direct candidate, while the remaining 299 are awarded based on the percentage of votes the parties receive. Many of the direct candidates are nominated by their parties, but the essence of the first vote is to choose who you believe is right for your district. For the second vote, a party needs to receive at least 5%, or win 3 districts, to be viable for a seat in the Bundestag. Each party prepares a list of nominated candidates before the election; those who are directly nominated from the first vote automatically get a seat in the Bundestag, while the seats a party wins in the second vote are handed to the remaining candidates.
Granted, this system is much more complicated than the current Canadian one. Oftentimes coalitions between parties must be formed due to no majority. However, it does ensure fairness and representation through awarding seats based on how people actually voted, unlike a pure FPTP system.
Though there has been talk about electoral reform in Canada for the past few decades, it is unlikely to be implemented for the near future. Dr. Rose says that if we look at New Zealand’s implementation of PR, it would be a multi-election process. Canada has previously attempted to broach the topic on both a federal and provincial level with no change.
When asked if Canadians should pay more attention to our electoral system, Dr. Rose noted that: “it depends on if they think the system represents their interests.” He spoke about how there is, “a shift in how we think about the role of citizens in our democracy,” and that now more than ever citizen's voices are being heard.
The word “democracy” translates to “rule by the people”— so, deciding if our system is undemocratic is dependent on the Canadian people. Electoral reform won’t happen without the support of the people, as has previously been shown through the failed referendums in British Columbia and Ontario. It’s up to us to determine what democracy means; we can take as many notes from other countries as we want, but at the end of the day, Canadians must decide if their system is representative of their meaning of democracy.