In the last federal election, more than half the votes were wasted. That is, more than half of the voters could have stayed home without affecting the outcome.
This was just one of the examples that Gisela Ruckert gave to an audience of 100 at Okanagan College Feb. 18, where she spoke about the pessimism and apathy that Canada’s ‘first past the post (FPTP)’ or ‘winner take all’ system is engendering.
“I believe we desperately and urgently need electoral reform in Canada.”
Ruckert, with Fair Vote Canada, noted that seven million votes in 2011 elected no one.
She said the second major problem with FPTP is the distorted results in each riding, which get compounded as they add up across the country. The system creates false majorities.
In the last election, for instance, Conservatives received 39.6 per cent of the votes, which gave them 54 per cent of the seats and 100 per cent of the power.
“Some get far more seats than in the popular vote. Some get far less,” she said.
She gave the example of the 1996 B.C. election, where 42 per cent of votes went to the Liberals but they won only 33 seats.
Ruckert pointed to a 2012 Nanos Research Survey that found Canadians do not have confidence in governments’ ability to solve problems of importance to them.
“In one generation we’ve gone from a nation of optimists to pessimists,” she said.
Another problem with FPTP is it can force strategic voting, where people don’t vote for who they really want but vote in order to force another party out of power, she said.
“It doesn’t have to be this way.”
Ruckert noted that proportional representation systems, where votes translate directly into seats, may be harder to explain, but they work well in many other countries.
She said it would not be difficult to change Canada’s voting system – the constitution would not have to be altered nor would a referendum be required.
“More than 80 countries, including 85 per cent of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) use a form of proportional representation to make every vote count.”
In recent elections in Sweden, Norway and New Zealand, she said, 97 per cent of votes cast elected someone. In Canada’s last three elections, only 50 per cent of votes elected anyone.
With proportional representation, voter turnout and satisfaction are higher. Governance is better, encompassing inclusiveness, bargaining and compromise.
A study from the London School of Economics “comes as a surprise to a lot of people,” Ruckert noted, explaining that countries with proportional representation are less likely to have deficits and more likely to have surpluses.
It’s also a myth that governments with proportional representation are at constant risk of falling, she said, noting statistics don’t support the assertion.
Ruckert said years of public opinion polls show voters from all parties support proportional representation. In 2013, 70 per cent were in favour.
Similarly, “every single group that has seriously compared electoral systems has recommended proportional representation because it simply works better.”
Attending the meeting were three federal election candidates: Cindy Derkaz for the Liberals, Jacqui Gingras with the NDP and Dave Smith for the Green Party. Conservative candidate Mel Arnold declined the invitation to attend.
Gingras and Smith said their parties support proportional representation, and Derkaz said she supports some form of it, while the Liberals are open to changing the system and will consult with Canadians.
Ruckert urged her audience to help make fair voting an election issue by asking MPs for a commitment to proportional representation.
She said more information can be found at www. fairvote. ca.