What We Talk About When We Talk About Electoral Reform

A national conversation about how we, as citizens, choose our representatives is an excellent opportunity to get Canadians engaged—to make democracy more accessible, more familiar, and more relevant to them.

With this report, the Samara Centre for Democracy aims to provide an entry point for Canadians seeking high-quality, non-partisan information about the options for electoral reform. 

Since Confederation, Canadian democracy has constantly evolved—from expanding the right to vote, to implementing stricter regulations around political party financing and adding new electoral districts (also called ridings or constituencies). Yet one thing has remained the same: every four years or so, Canadians head to the ballot box to vote for a candidate in their local riding. The candidate who wins the most votes in each riding heads to Ottawa as a Member of Parliament.

This electoral system is called “First Past the Post” (or FPTP). Though it’s the system Canadians are most familiar with—it’s used at all political levels across all provinces—it is just one of several electoral systems in operation around the world today. Other countries offer alternative systems for how their citizens vote and how those votes are counted. In recent years, many Canadians—from elected leaders to academics to everyday citizens—have asked if our electoral system should evolve or if Canadians should adopt a new system altogether. 

Why does voting matter?

In a democracy, how votes are cast, counted and translated into power is extremely important to citizens and their governance. Voting allows people to be represented by a group or person of their choice, and have their voice heard. If citizens do not feel that their vote matters, the legitimacy of government—and possibly of democracy itself—may erode.

Majority governments who gain power without a majority of the popular vote, underpresentation of visible minorities in the House of Commons, and inconsistent voter turnout (particularly a concern in municipal races) have all been cited by critics of the first-past-the-post system as direct results of this voting system. Yet dissatisfaction with how democracy functions is not a specifically Canadian phenomenon. Countries who use other electoral systems also have citizens who express frustration with politics. In other words, changing the electoral system does not guarantee a significant boost in satisfaction with the way democracy works.

What’s in this report?

Various electoral systems are used by countries and jurisdictions around the world. The systems in this report are organized into three families based on the outcomes they generate: non-proportional, proportional and semi-proportional (“semi” because the degree of proportionality depends on the design). Five frequently discussed options are profiled in this report, but readers should be aware that the details of each system matter, and significantly impact both the process and outcomes of elections for voters, candidates and parties alike.

This report is an entry point to the discussion on electoral reform. This report strives to provide accurate and essential information about the design and implications of each alternative without overwhelming the reader in detail. For each system, readers will learn about how votes are cast and how ballots are counted, as well as the potential implications for voters, parties and Parliament.

What should I think about as I read about the options for electoral systems?

1. No magic bullet: Each voting system has trade-offs. There is no single electoral system that is objectively the “best” system, as each instead brings its own set of strengths and weaknesses. To select the system that works for Canada, Canadians must identify the values we want reflected in our politics and choose a system that best reflects this vision, understanding that no system will be perfect.

2. Stickiness: Change in electoral systems is hard to achieve. Investing the time to find the right system is important because once a system is chosen, it will be hard to change.

3. There will always be winners and losers: Every system for voting takes a different approach to translating citizens’ preferences into a representative government. The choice of a system can significantly affect the result, and no system eliminates the need for Canadians to think strategically about their vote.

Partisan advantage is hard to predict: What electoral system is assumed to work better for one political party over another in the short term may not hold in the long run as parties and candidates adapt their behaviour under the new rules, and new political parties emerge.

4. Party members will matter: The nomination process plays a significant role in determining who will stand for MP as a party’s candidate. Under a new electoral system, parties and their members may need to reconsider their internal roles, rules and processes. Their decisions will shape the outcomes of electoral reform.

5. Long road to implementation: In addition to debating the merits of the best electoral system for Canada, many disagree about the most legitimate process to determine this change. Beyond the process currently being driven by Parliament and government, some have called for a national referendum. Others suggest that the courts will likely be asked to weigh in on the constitutionality of any change.

6. Made-in-Canada solution: Canada’s unique geography, political culture, and history will matter as Canadians consider which option will work best here. We can learn from the experiences of other countries, but we should not assume something will work well in Canada because it works somewhere else.

7. Democratic reform is more than electoral reform: While this report considers political reform through a wholesale change of the electoral system, Canadians should also know that there are small changes that could make a difference to how people experience democracy. Dozens of small reforms are being proposed by elected officials and others—changes to electoral rules, parliamentary procedures, party financing, and beyond—many of which may be worthwhile considering in addition to or beyond electoral reform.