Election Reform

Canadian Provincial election laws

International Campaign Finance, a comparison
Educated Voters--satire
Watch Them, Love Them, They are Honorable
2008 election & voter purging
How Canada keeps business bucks out
Canadian Provincial election laws
Costs of U.S. federal elections
Seven U.S. States passed election funding reforms
Australian Public Funding Elections
American Democracy--Jim Hightower
Canadian Politics, an over view

Site maintained by Prof. Andrew Heard, Political Science Department Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada


Local systems and various ways other countries seek to have votes correlate to candidates elected

The single member plurality system used in all Canadian federal and provincial elections has many strengths but also reveals serious weaknesses in producing legislatures that reflect the choice of parties made by the voters.  Also, recent Canadian elections have witnessed a significant fall in voter turnout, which some say indicates that structural changes are needed in order to encourage greater participation.

The 2004 election will no doubt spark debates about reforming the electoral system to ensure that representation in Parliament reflects the wishes of voters.  While the Liberals and Conservative won a proportion of seats that is not hugely out of line with their share of the votes (see: election results), there were still some other anomalies worth mentioning. For example, the Liberals won about 93% of the seats (13 out of 14) in Saskatchewan, even though they only got 42% of the vote. The NDP also received about 5% more votes than in the 1997 election, but ended up winning 2 less seats. NDP leader Jack Layton has promised to make electoral reform an important condition of support any minority government. More importantly, however, the success and stability of this coming period of minority government will have a significant impact on Canadians' receptivity to any reform that might lead to much more frequent minority governments.

Since the last federal election in 2000, there has been significant movement towards electoral reform at both the federal and provincial levels. In early 2004, the Law Commission of Canada issued a report recommending that the federal electoral system be changed to a mixed member system that allows for more proportional representation of parties in the House of Commons.

At the provincial level, the most significant development has been the creation of the Citizens' Assembly in British Columbia. 160 citizens were chosen at random - 2 from each riding and 2 from the aboriginal community - to meet and debate the merits of changing the provincial electoral system. The Assembly met for several months in early 2004 and then set out a series of public consultation meetings.  In the Fall of 2004, the Assembly decided to recommend that BC should adopt the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. The Assembly's report, Making Every Vote Count (pdf - 1.9MB) was released in December 2004. The recommendation to adopt a new electoral system was put to the voters in a referendum question at the May 2005 provincial election. In order for the measure to be acted upon, the government required 60% support across the province, including 50% support in 60% of the ridings. The referendum results fell just short of the main criterion, with 58% support province-wide; all but 2 of the ridings saw at least 50% support for adopting BC-STV. The premier has since pledged to hold another referendum in November 2008.

PEI voters recently rejected changes, after several years of study had culminated in a 2005 plebiscite. The PEI Electoral Reform Commissioner recommended in 2003 that some element of proportionality be added, but he did not make specific recommendations. After  the Commission on PEI's Electoral Future reviewed the matter, issued a final report, that recommended the province adopt an MMP system with two ballots. It suggested that the selection of the 27-member house be divided between 17 to be elected by SMP and 10 to be filled from party lists; in theory the list seats are top provide 'full compensation' to ensure that a party has a total number of seats in the house that is proportional to its share of the votes. The proposal was put to the PEI voters in a plebiscite on November 28, 2005; the PEI government adopted the BC thresholds, requiring 60% support province-wide plus 50% support in at least 60% of the ridings. When the votes were counted, however, 64% of the PEI electorate voted against the proposal; only 2 of the 27 ridings saw a majority in favour of electoral change.

The Commission on Legislative Democracy in New Brunswick released an interim report in September 2004 that recommended that the province adopt a Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system as well as moved to elections being held on a fixed 4-year schedule. Their final report was issued in January 2005 and recommended that there be 36 single-member ridings and 4 multi-member ridings with a total of 20 seats filled through a PR party list system. Premier Bernard Lord has announced that the legislature will pass legislation to allow a referendum to be held in the spring of 2008 on adopting the new system; the referendum will be held at the same time as municipal elections.

Quebec has created the Ministry for the Reform of Democratic Institutions. Serious debate has been launched with a draft bill (English text) proposed in December 2004 that would see radical restructuring of the electoral boundaries and methods of election. There would be 75 single member ridings roughly based on the current federal boundaries, plus another 2 rural single member ridings.  In addition there would be 24-27 "districts" that would each cover 3 of the regular ridings, and every district would have a further 2 district seats. Voters would only cast one vote and the district seats would be compensatory; the filling of district seats would be based on the shares of the party vote in the combined single-member ridings for that district, and filled from party lists. See the French texts of the press release and the Minister's summary for an overview.

In Ontario, the government has set up the Democratic Renewal Secretariat and proposed that elections be held on a 4-year cycle starting with one to be held October 4, 2007. As well, the Premier announced that Ontario would create a Citizens' Assembly, similar to BC's, to examine electoral reform. In addition, a Citizens' Jury will examine election finance issues.

The Library of Parliament has published research papers that provide useful background on the Canadian electoral system and on alternative electoral systems.

Strengths of Single Member Plurality (SMP)

There are several direct advantages of using the single member plurality system. First, it is far more likely to produce majority governments in a competitive multi-party system. In the 12 federal elections held in the last 40 years, 8 have resulted in majority governments, even though the winning party won a majority of votes only once, in 1984. Majority governments are said to provide stable government and allow direct accountability to the electorate. In contrast, partners in a minority or coalition government can either point fingers at each other or each claim credit at the next election. 

SMP also facilitates clear community representation. With the 2004 elections, Canada is divided into 308 constituencies each with their own representative to speak on behalf of local interests.

Disadvantages of SMP Systems

The are a number of disadvantages to the SMP system. The most important is that a party's share of the votes only rarely bears any semblance to the share of seats they win. A candidate only needs one more vote than her or his opponents. The winner's votes beyond that number are "wasted" while the votes for all the other candidates do not help in electing other members of their parties. 

Examples of vote/seat distortion abound in Canadian elections.  The clearest example is found in the 1987 New Brunswick provincial election, in which the Liberal Party won all the seats in the legislature on the strength of about 60% of the vote. The other 40% of the electorate were left with no direct representation of their policy interests in the legislature. 

In the 1997 federal elections, two other serious problems emerged.  In Ontario, the Liberals won 99 out of 101 the province's seats. However, a bare majority of voters had voted for other candidates. In PEI, the Liberals won all four seats on the basis of about 45% of the vote.

In the 1998 Quebec, the 1996 BC, and 1986 Saskatchewan provincial elections, parties won a majority of seats even though they had placed second in the overall province-wide total of the votes.

The distortion in vote and seat share can be seen in the following charts of selected elections:

1997. 1993, & 1988 Federal Elections 

1997 & 1993 Alberta Elections

1986, 1991, 1996, and 2001 BC Elections

See also the provincial discrepancies in the vote/seat shares of parties in the 1997 federal election on the past elections page of this site.


Alternative Electoral Systems

There are several alternatives to SMP that are used in various countries around the world and are reviewed in the Library of Parliament's paper on alternative electoral systems.

Some countries, such as Australia and France, use majority systems that aim to ensure that the winning candidate has received some sort of support from a majority of voters. These are usually single member ridings and can either be by preferential ballot or multiple rounds of voting.  In the Alternative Vote system, a voter ranks the candidates on the ballot paper according to their preference: their first choice gets "1", the second choice "2", and so on.  When all the first choice votes are added up, a candidate is declared a winner only if they have a majority of the first choices.  In the event that no one has a majority of first choice votes, then the candidate with the least number is dropped off the list, and their ballot papers are examined to redistribution according to the second choice marked on the ballot.  These votes are then added to the remaining candidates and added up to see if anyone has a majority.  The process of eliminating a candidate and redistributing their votes is continued until one candidate emerges with a majority of votes.  The French use a double ballot system, where one round of voting is held in single member ridings; if a candidate receives a majority then they are elected.  If not, then a second round of voting is held a few weeks later, with lower ranked candidates eliminated.

The most popular systems are proportional representation systems. There are several varieties, but all attempt to translate a parties share of votes into a roughly proportional share of the legislature's seats.  The most common is a party list system, where political parties prepare a ranked list of candidates with up to as many candidates as there are seats in the legislature. On election day, the voters vote for the party of their choice and the total votes for each party are added up.  The parties are then declared to have won a number of seats in the legislature  that is roughly proportionate to their share of the votes; most countries have some threshold number of votes (i.e. 3 or 5%) that a party must win in order to qualify for seats.  There are two variations on this system: the closed list works strictly with the list of candidates as ranked by the parties, and the seats are filled from candidates drawn from the top of the list and working down; the open list system allows the voters to vote for a candidate and the candidate's final position on the party's list of candidates is determined by the overall number of votes he or she has received. The success with which a PR system provides parties with a share of the seats that is proportional to their vote share is dependent on several factors including the number of parties that fall short of the threshold and whether the votes and seats are counted up either nationally, provincially, or regionally.  In counties such as Israel or the Netherlands, where the votes are added up and distributed nationally, the large pool of seats allows a closer relationship between seats and votes.  Many countries, however, divide the pool of seats into smaller regions with a smaller set of seats (for example from 5 to 20). The smaller the number of seats to be shared, the more likely distortions are likely to occur in competitive, multi-party elections. In addition, there are several mathematical formulae that can be used to allocate seats among the parties and each imparts a certain distortion into the process.

The single transferable vote (STV) system has not been widely adopted around the world, but its profile has been raised in Canada since the BC Citizens' Assembly recommended in 2004 that the province should adopt STV instead of SMP. The STV system raises the probability that the main parties share of seats in the legislature will be somewhat proportional to their share of votes.  In this system, a country or province is divided into smaller regions, and several members will be elected from each region.  From the voters' perspective the system is similar to the alternative vote system, since voters rank the parties or candidates in order of their preference (e.g. 1, 2, 3).  Initially all the candidates first preferences are counted up in order to see if any have achieved the "quota" of votes needed to get elected. This quota is determined by a mathematical equation that is based on the number of valid votes cast and the number of seats to elected in the region.

  Number of valid votes        + 1  =  Quota
(Number to be elected) + 1

For example, if 100,000 valid votes were cast and there are 3 seats to be filled, then the quota is calculated in the following way to be 25,001 votes:

 100,000 + 1 = 25,001
   3 + 1 

Anyone who is receives enough 1st preference ballots to meet the quota is elected.  Otherwise, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and the 2nd choices that voters marked on those ballots are then distributed among the remaining candidates. The process continues until all the eligible seats are filled. There are, however, very different ideas about how to distribute the "surplus" of votes cast for a candidate once they meet the quota - see David Farrell's article (pdf) on Australia's 1983 electoral reforms for an explanation.

It should be noted that the STV system does not guarantee proportional results, and sometimes allows the leading one or two parties to completely dominate the seats won in a region. Minor parties with 10-15% of the vote, for example, may be left without enough votes to reach the quota needed to win seats. The main strength of the STV is that voters can rank order the individual candidates - although the STV system used for Australian Senate elections permits voters to simply mark their ballot in favour of a whole party rather than have to mark individual candidates' names. As well, the size of the region from which members of the legislatures are elected may be smaller than those used in party-list PR systems.  STV is used in Ireland, Malta, as well as for several state-level elections in Australia and for the Australian Senate elections

Germany, New Zealand, and Russia are examples of countries that use some form of the mixed member proportional (MMP) system. It is a popular choice, being used in 29 countries in 1999. Some seats are contested on an SMP basis while others are apportioned to the parties on proportional bases that vary according to the number of seats reserved for this purpose. Voters can have two ballots - one for the their choice of individual legislature, and another vote for their choice of party for the second set of seats. In Germany and New Zealand, for example, half of the legislature is elected by single member plurality and half are drawn from the party lists.  The party list half are allocated in a manner that tries to provide a party with a total share of the seats in the legislature that is roughly proportional to their share of the party-list vote. A number of counties in the former Soviet Union adopted forms of MMP, as have Italy and Japan. However, the relative portion of seats devoted to SMP elections and those chosen by by PR do vary widely.  Plus, there can be variations about the objective of the seats assigned from the party list.  They may, as in the case of Germany & New Zealand, be distributed in order to ensure the total share of seats a party wins (including the SMP & party list seats) is proportional to the party's share of votes.  Or, the party list seats may be awarded with so that only the party-list seats are proportional to the share of votes; the number of seats won by SMP would be irrelevant in this case.


Resources on Electoral Systems

The Law Commission of Canada's electoral reform site provides a good range of research papers on election issues, in addition to its final report.

Institute for Research on Public Policy has published some interesting material on electoral reform, particularly in connection with its Governance Project.  In addition, the July-August 2001 and September 1997 issues of Policy Options contains many articles debating the relative merits of reforming Canada's electoral system. Broader discussions of elections are also found in Richard Johnson's Canadian Elections at the Millennium (pdf) and in Paul Howe's and David Northrup's Strengthening Canadian Democracy: The Views of Canadians.

The Australian Electoral Commission provides a good overview of all the different electoral systems which includes a chart of which countries around the world use which system.

The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance provides a detailed Handbook of Electoral Systems Design.

Further useful information can also be found at:

Electoral Reform Society (UK)

Fair Vote Canada

New Zealand Mixed Member Plurality electoral system

New Zealand 2001 Parliamentary Inquiry into the MMP System (pdf)

UK Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System (Jenkins Report)



Teddy Roosevelt's advice that, "We must drive the special interests out of politics. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being. There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains."