The Problem With First-Past-the-Post
Here’s why three out of four of our major political parties want to change our electoral system.
One of the many talking points you might notice during this extended election season has been the issue of the election itself—namely, the system by which we elect our government. Currently we have three of the four major political parties actively campaigning to do away with the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has pledged to make this election the last election using FPTP, while Liberal and Green leaders Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May have expressed similar intentions. The only candidate that hasn’t commented on the issue this election is incumbent Prime Minister Stephen Harper who defended the system back in 2011.
Why are most of our political parties so opposed to the status quo? And why is the party in power the only one who’s uninterested in making changes? What’s wrong with first-past-the-post?
First, a quick overview for those of us who slept through grade eight social studies. FPTP is the system that divides Canada into ridings. Each election, the local candidate with the most votes in his or her riding becomes the member of parliament for that riding and is awarded a seat in the House of Commons. The party that wins the most seats becomes the ruling party.
So what’s wrong with that? Well, one clue to the fundamental flaw with FPTP can be seen in the 2011 election results. As most will remember, the Conservatives shocked us all by pulling a surprise majority win. However, this “majority” starts to look a lot less like a majority when one considers that only 39.62 per cent of voters actually voted Conservative. This is because FPTP only takes into account the number of seats won when deciding a winner, so if a party wins a riding by one per cent in an extremely close race then that party takes the riding and the runner-up gets nothing. Winner takes all. This means that if you vote and your party loses in your riding than your vote is essentially wasted.
It’s easy to see why the Conservatives are the only party that’s happy with this arrangement. Since the merger of the Progressive Conservative Party and Canadian Alliance to form the modern Conservative party in 2003, there has been only one party in Canada that leans to the right of the three left and centre-left parties. This consolidation of the right and fragmentation of the left means a lot of narrow wins in ridings for the Conservatives. Because a narrow win counts for just as much as a landslide, first-past-the-post creates a significant advantage for the Conservative party, and Stephen Harper knows it.
This advantage represents a serious problem for the health of our democracy. In Canada, a majority government wields a lot of power. Since the a majority government controls the bulk of the seats in parliament and therefore most of the votes, a majority is able to pass any legislation it likes virtually unchecked. That’s quite a bit of power for a government that doesn’t have the backing of 60 per cent of voters.
The main alternative to FPTP, and the one currently being touted by Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair, is proportional representation. This system would divvy up seats in the House of Commons based on the number of Canadians who voted for each party. Simple as that. This system would allow smaller parties that gain grassroot support among a small but significant number of Canadians, but can’t pull a win in concentrated ridings, to achieve some level of representation. It would also mean no more 40 per cent “majorities.”
The currently leading NDP and third place Liberal Party have both placed great importance on reforming our electoral system. Justin Trudeau stated that such a step is needed to “restore democracy in Canada,” while Mulcair said in an op-ed in Common Ground magazine that “it’s up to Canadians to make the next election the last unfair election.” These are not overstatements. If either of these parties forms our government after Oct. 19, then that party will have a responsibility to create a system that accurately represents the will of Canadians.
