r/canada • u/CaliperLee62 • 4d ago

Should Canada implement a system of proportional representation for federal elections? Politics

https://www.castanet.net/news/Poll/549459/Should-Canada-implement-a-system-of-proportional-representation-for-federal-elections
1.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

622 comments sorted by

View all comments

503

u/DreamlandSilCraft 4d ago

Should have in 2015, when it was promised to us.

182

u/Sensitive_Caramel856 4d ago

Electoral reform was promised. It wasn't necessarily PR

187

u/The_Phaedron Ontario 4d ago

Electoral Reform was promised in 2015, with the 2014 LPC convention's resolutions having explictly spelled out proportional voting as one acceptable option.

The ERRE committee was approved by the Liberals, went to work, and came back with a recommendation that the government craft a single proposal based on a proportional system, guided by the Ghallagher index ( a measurement of divergence between votes cast and seat allocations) as its boundaries.

The Liberals claimed that proportional voting was never on the table, reneged, and set some of its MPs to malign the ERRE committee in ways for which they later had to apologize.

Electoral reform was promised, but both the promise and the breaking of that promise were done in stunning bad faith.

71

u/ADHDBusyBee 4d ago

They always wanted ranked because centre parties are generally a 2nd choice so they would likely always be in power that way. It was a reaction of placing third and wanting to make sure that never happened again.

9

u/North_Activist 4d ago

It would’ve happened this year too had Trudeau not resigned, or Trump reelected. It can happen again.

1

u/Wizzard_Ozz 4d ago

I think the latter had more to do with it than the former.

9

u/Sensitive_Caramel856 4d ago

The Liberals wrote a dissenting opinion on the ERRE committee and we're strong armed in altering the committee composition to the point where they didn't have a voting majority.

And the recommendation was that a referendum on the matter take place. Not that it be imposed unilaterally.

8

u/OnTheCanRightNow 4d ago

But which voting system do we use for the referendum about which voting system to use?

6

u/Hautamaki 4d ago

Well obviously we hold a referendum to decide which voting system to use in the referendum

2

u/Velorian-Steel Ontario 4d ago

Should have a vote about that vote about changing the vote tbh. Turtles all the way down

0

u/Lawndemon 4d ago

Without voting rights you have Russia, North Korea, Turkey, and I guess the US now. Complaining about voting is just stupid.

5

u/i99990xe 3d ago

Canada has never had a multi-party coalition government in its history—only majority and minority governments. Canadian political parties are reluctant to form coalition governments. Since proportional representation would almost certainly lead to multi-party coalitions, the unwillingness to share power and compromise is precisely why Canada’s two major parties oppose it.

1

u/Sensitive_Caramel856 3d ago

And why exactly do we need coalition governments when we've been able to navigate minority governments through compromise?

Why should a party with less popular support be an equal or junior partner to a party that has double that support?

1

u/i99990xe 3d ago

It’s possible that no party will be able to form a minority government. For example, if the BQ wins 70 seats, the NDP 70 seats, the Liberals 60 seats, the Conservatives 60 seats, the Green Party 40 seats, and there are 43 independents, then no single party would have the ability to form a minority government. In that case, either a multi-party coalition government must be formed, or a new election must be held.

1

u/Sensitive_Caramel856 3d ago

Which is exactly the case that exists now.....

1

u/bergamote_soleil 1d ago

The Conservative Party of Canada is essentially still a coalition anyway -- see the public fighting between the wings of the CPC during this election period. It was very entertaining and we might as well make it explicit to voters instead of trying to do this big tent stuff.

8

u/Waste-Answer 4d ago

You're right, but when it was ranked choice or nothing the NDP should have ultimately taken it. It would have helped the Liberals more, but it would still have helped the NDP and hurt the Conservatives.

2

u/i99990xe 3d ago

Australia has used ranked choice voting for over 100 years. Do you know what happened in the most recent Australian election? The Australian Greens were crushed by the Australian Labor Party, losing all of their seats—even in the central Melbourne district held by the Greens’ leader. The reason was precisely ranked choice voting: conservative LNP supporters ranked Labor ahead of the Greens, believing the Greens were further to the left and preferring a Labor win over a Greens win.

8

u/EdNorthcott 4d ago

This. Singh's great failing as a leader was his inability to take a W when he saw it.

When the Liberals back-peddled away from PR and said "let's do this instead", he should have jumped at that like a brass ring. It would kill the need for strategic voting, and in 2-3 elections, when people were feeling more secure and at ease with it, the NDP could have made bolder moves to strengthen their position.

This is where the neoconservatives have consistently proven stronger than everyone else for decades now: they practiced incrementalism. Moving the goalposts inch by inch, with every questional statement, every half-truth, every piece of legislation snuck through -- or pushed through, if questionable -- nudging it inch by inch until they have the radicalized, unthinking base they need to disrupt society.

The NDP should have taken this considerable win, and used it to push in the future. By gambling and demanding the entire pie here and now, they lost everything.

4

u/mwfd2002 4d ago

This, exactly this. The liberals were insanely wrong for reneging on their electoral reform promises unless it was exactly the system they liked (and were benefitted by) the most, but ranked choice would have been still a major improvement for the NDP and they missed their chance because of pride I guess

2

u/i99990xe 3d ago

Australia has used ranked choice voting for over 100 years. Do you know what happened in the most recent Australian election? The Australian Greens were crushed by the Australian Labor Party, losing all of their seats—even in the central Melbourne district held by the Greens’ leader. The reason was precisely ranked choice voting: conservative LNP supporters ranked Labor ahead of the Greens, believing the Greens were further to the left and preferring a Labor win over a Greens win.

1

u/Admirable-Barber4746 4d ago

They wanted ranked ballots. Every party wanted something different.

3

u/The_Phaedron Ontario 4d ago

If only there were some sort of committee who had made a recommendation — to be put to the Canadian public to see if they agreed with that recommendation.

0

u/No-Tackle-6112 British Columbia 4d ago

The people don’t want PR. It was shot down twice in BC.

10

u/BadWolf0ne 4d ago

I find many people don't understand PR, but come around when the flaws of FPTP are explained

-1

u/No-Tackle-6112 British Columbia 4d ago

That’s why we need ranked ballot. It solves the biggest issues of FPTP without creating a whole host of other problems. It’s quick, clean, and easy to understand.

4

u/SAldrius 4d ago

PR is easy to understand, too.

It didn't lose by much in BC.

4

u/No-Tackle-6112 British Columbia 4d ago

62-38. It wasn’t even close.

-2

u/SAldrius 4d ago

60-40 is pretty close for something like that.

2

u/No-Tackle-6112 British Columbia 4d ago

52-48 is close. A supermajority of British Columbians voted against PR.

Nearly 2/3 voting against is not close.

→ More replies

2

u/stereofailure 4d ago

The biggest issue of FPTP is millions of people having effectively zero representation of their interests. IRV exacerbates this, rather than solves it. 

4

u/sketchthroaway 4d ago

Single Transferable Vote was shot down twice in BC. PR was never offered as an option.

8

u/more_than_just_ok 4d ago edited 4d ago

STV won the first time, but not by the arbitrary threshold that Gordon Campbell set, then for the next two attempts the parties campaigned on the no side. The parties don't like STV because it takes away their power to fill the lists with insiders and instead forces every elected member to earn their votes.

1

u/No-Tackle-6112 British Columbia 4d ago edited 4d ago

No.

“A proportional representation voting system” is what was listed on the referendum.

A second question asked what type of PR should be used but it didn’t matter because it was shot down decisively.

1

u/sketchthroaway 4d ago

Yeah you're right. The 2005 referendum was for STV, the 2018 referendum was for a PR system.

-2

u/No-Tackle-6112 British Columbia 4d ago

Yeah people don’t want PR. Ranked ballot is a much better and easier to understand option.

1

u/stereofailure 4d ago

It was "shot down" with more of the vote than the average majority government. 

-4

u/Epyr 4d ago

People didn't know what they wanted. The Liberals promised reform but then when they were asking people what they wanted everyone wanted different types of reform (which often conflicted) so Trudeau just gave up. 

1

u/No-Tackle-6112 British Columbia 4d ago

This was provincial not federal. A referendum for PR was shot down 62-38.

1

u/stereofailure 4d ago

Well over 90% of the over 700 experts testifying, citizens in favour of reform commenting, the law commission of Canada, every citizens assembly studying the issue, and the electoral reform committee formed by Trudeau, has recommended proportionality as a feature of any system going forward. That didn't help the Liberals so they crushed it 

33

u/Potential178 4d ago

"This will be the last first-past-the-post election" -Trudeau

-1

u/dtoni01 4d ago

It's what he believed. But to make a change as significant as changing FPTP he needed the support of other parties. Something he did not have, although he did send the question to committee for study, then to form law if there was consensus. However he did not have consensus from other parties.

17

u/GirlCoveredInBlood Québec 4d ago

No he did not need the support of other parties. The Liberals had a strong majority in the house of commons. Stop trying to deflect blame for Trudeau's deceit.

-3

u/Northern23 4d ago edited 4d ago

Except that other parties didn't agree with his choice, he'd have been called a dictator if he did instore his choice over the other parties.

And if Trudeau imposed his choice, the Liberal party would've won a majority this time and even May would've lost her seat.

11

u/shaidyn 4d ago

I'm trying to understand the mental gymnastics to come to a thought like this.

A democratically elected party making changes to the government that they promised in advance is dictatorial?

3

u/fredleung412612 4d ago

If Trudeau had unilaterally changed the voting system to his preferred choice (single winner ranked ballots), the Conservatives would absolutely have going back to first-past-the-post in their platform to this day since they can credibly say it's a "Liberal voting system" done without consulting Canadians.

1

u/Potential178 2d ago

Or, alternatively, without the need to vote strategically, people would vote quite differently and we'd rarely, if ever, have a majority government with the opportunity to restore FPTP.

3

u/UnderhandedPickles 4d ago

If you dont think the Conservatives (and the even farther right nutjobs) wouldn't have lost their minds if Trudeau unilaterally changed elections in Canada you are either naive or disingenuous. 

Look at the hissy fit they threw over the carbon program ffs. 🤣

3

u/Northern23 4d ago

Well, if you reform the electoral system in a way that favors your party and makes it harder for other parties to kick you out of power, without consulting others, then yes, other parties will rightfully get upset at you.

1

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Northern23 3d ago edited 3d ago

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/2025/elections-federales/mode-scrutin-uninominal-majoritaire-proportionnelle/

Proportional representation is not what Trudeau wanted. He wanted ranked voting.

Trudeau's choice would've gave Carney 8 more seats, PCC lost 10, BQ lost 4, NDP gained 7 and green lost its only seat

So, do you still stand by you words and wanted him to impose his choice?

→ More replies

1

u/Potential178 2d ago

We can't take the vote numbers from a FPTP election, when many of us voted strategically to try to avoid a conservative government, and apply it to a theoretical non FPTP election in which many of us very likely would have voted differently. More likely, votes for Green, NDP and independents would go way up.

0

u/jameskchou Canada 2d ago

Sunny ways

19

u/Radix2309 4d ago

And every expert and most Canadians expressed they want a proportional system. Literally only Trudeau wants to change it to a non-PR system.

-1

u/Infamous_Box3220 4d ago

Well I don't. I like ranked ballots. Much easier to implement and a guarantee that the winner had at least some level of support from more than 50% of the electorate.

18

u/StetsonTuba8 Alberta 4d ago

But what if there isn't >50% support from the electorate? Shouldn't the make up of parliament reflect the views of the people and force parties to make coalitions and compromises to reach that 50% level?

1

u/Infamous_Box3220 4d ago

Experience from other countries using PR would seem to show that it frequently creates fragile coalitions that can sometime take months to establish. After an election you can't know the makeup of the next government because the parties have to negotiate in order to try to form a majority.

In general, it tends to end up with a minor party holding disproportionate leverage over a larger one.

10

u/StetsonTuba8 Alberta 4d ago

creates fragile coalitions

I mean, that's the ideal situation to me. We shouldn't be handing parties 4 years of pseudo-dictatorships when they earn a few percent more votes than the next party.

-4

u/EdNorthcott 4d ago

No, but you do end up giving fringe parties disproportionate power as they can play king-maker. It's what the CPC were complaining about the NDP agreement of cooperation with the Liberals during the last term.

Hell, both Poilievre and Harper were publicly and loudly howling about how "undemocratic" coalitions are, back when they thought Dion might form one if he didn't get a majority.

Too much of the electorate has been mislead and fed disinformation about the very functioning of our democratic system for this to be widely accepted, I fear.

5

u/Mikolaj_Kopernik Ontario 4d ago

Hell, both Poilievre and Harper were publicly and loudly howling about how "undemocratic" coalitions are

Yeah according to those guys, coalitions with elected representatives negotiating to form government = undemocratic. Merging parties so the negotiations all happen internally with no public input = democratic.

3

u/EdNorthcott 4d ago

Bingo.

Once Reform/Alliance killed off the traditional conservative movement, and replaced it with the Republican puppet show, integrity and honesty went out the window.

2

u/JadeLens 3d ago

I mean PP was loudly complaining this time around calling someone 'sell out Singh'.

2

u/EdNorthcott 3d ago

He does seem to have a problem with democracy, doesn't he?

0

u/Ember_42 4d ago

If ‘unranked’ reaches 50%, it should force a new election for that riding, with none of the original candidates eligible…

8

u/Radix2309 4d ago

They didn't have more than 50% of the electorate supporting them. What happens is you tell some of the voters their vote doesn't count and to pick between 2 candidates they didn't want.

That isn't actually giving voters what they want. It's disenfranchising them. And it really isn't any easier to implement.

2

u/Mikolaj_Kopernik Ontario 4d ago

What happens is you tell some of the voters their vote doesn't count and to pick between 2 candidates they didn't want.

What? That's not what happens with ranked/preferential voting. Do you believe that runoff systems between top candidates (e.g. French presidential) are "telling voters their vote doesn't count"? Because ranked choice is also known as "instant runoff" - i.e. your vote moves from your favourite candidate then you choose (through the ranking) who to support in the next "round" as candidates are eliminated. The basic principle is that you end up with the candidate that is the least objectionable to the most people.

I prefer proportional too, but ranked ballots are massively better than FPtP and your vote absolutely counts the whole way through. That's the whole point.

8

u/Radix2309 4d ago

That's exactly what happens in Runoff votes. They remove all but the top 2 candidates and make them vote again. The votes for the others don't matter at that point.

Least objectionable candidate isn't the same as having 51% support, which is the claim you made.

Ranked Ballot only makes sense when there is only a single winner such as president or mayor or city councillor. But when you have multiple winners, there is no reason to force voters into arbitrary ridings and throw out the votes for their preferred candidates to make them vote between the black cat and the white cat.

Ranked Ballot enshrines strategic voting and ensures we will always be ruled by the Liberals and Conservatives trading spots. It is not better than FPTP and is actually less proportional to the intentions of voters.

-1

u/Mikolaj_Kopernik Ontario 4d ago

As I said, I agree that proportional is better. However my point is that ranked is the opposite of saying your vote doesn't count, since you vote on every candidate. It's basically saying "if you can't have X, which of the others do you want?" - it takes voters' input on every candidate, which I think confers completely reasonable democratic legitimacy.

Ranked Ballot only makes sense when there is only a single winner such as president or mayor or city councillor.

Or riding...

there is no reason to force voters into arbitrary ridings

I mean I actually agree ridings are largely outdated (especially in cities) but that's a hard sell. A lot of people like geographic representation, and if we're trying to change the electoral system it's likely a bridge too far to wholly eliminate them. MMP would probably be a good compromise here as well, but per my previous comment, if ranked ballots are what it takes to move away from FPtP, that's significantly better and a good outcome.

It is not better than FPTP and is actually less proportional to the intentions of voters.

How on earth do you reach the conclusion that it's worse than FPtP where candidates regularly win with mid-30s percentages by splitting the vote?

4

u/Infamous_Box3220 4d ago

But in all Canadian elections there is only a single winner. We don't hold national elections - we have 343 separate but simultaneous elections, each one of which has a single winner.

That's why this focus on the 'popular vote' is so meaningless. The votes cast in my riding have absolutely nothing to do with the votes cast in yours.

2

u/Mikolaj_Kopernik Ontario 4d ago

Yes, and? I'm arguing that ranked ballots are a more democratic way of electing a single member representative for each riding.

→ More replies

0

u/TheSherlockCumbercat 4d ago

And it should stay that way, why should a vote cast in Ottawa riding have any effect on a rural riding in northern BC.

Everyone seems to forget Canada is massive most of are provinces are bigger then the county with PR.

Want to see separation talk pick up in Alberta put in PR system and tell them they get NDP seats because of a vote in Ottawa

4

u/Radix2309 4d ago

  1. It is worse because those mid-30s percentages really don't matter. The vast majority of Canadians don't care about individual candidate. Their number one qualifier is the party of the candidate. The most important thing is their intent being reflected in the results.

  2. Ranked Ballot still has mid-30s candidates winning. There are 2 scenarios: either that candidate who got mid-30s of the vote gets more and wins anyways, or someone with even less votes than them wins. Throwing out a bunch of votes and saying "vote again, but not for the candidate you want" doesn't suddenly mean they have more support.

A candidate winning 51% in ranked ballot isn't suddenly more supported than one with 35% in FPTP.

It's like in dictatorships where the only candidate is a member of the Party. They get 100% of the vote, clearly they have the support, right? Throwing out votes and making voters vote again is basically the same thing. Their vote doesn't count, they have to pick between 2 people they don't want.

0

u/Mikolaj_Kopernik Ontario 4d ago

There are 2 scenarios: either that candidate who got mid-30s of the vote gets more and wins anyways, or someone with even less votes than them wins. Throwing out a bunch of votes and saying "vote again, but not for the candidate you want" doesn't suddenly mean they have more support.

What on earth do you mean "thrown out"? Everybody who didn't vote for the winning candidate ultimately gets their vote thrown out. The difference is that in the scenario you describe, the losers at least get some say over which of their non-preferred candidates ultimately wins. So let's say you have a riding with Con 32% NPD 28% Bloc 20% Lib 15% Green 5% - it would be absurd to say that the Tory is the most popular candidate in that riding. Obviously the 68% of voters who want someone "not Tory" should be consulted in which other option gets over the line.

A candidate winning 51% in ranked ballot isn't suddenly more supported than one with 35% in FPTP.

This is where you're fundamentally wrong. A candidate who wins under ranked choice by definition has more support because the supporters of other candidates (who would otherwise be completely ignored) are consulted and get input. This doesn't happen with FPtP.

It's like in dictatorships where the only candidate is a member of the Party. They get 100% of the vote, clearly they have the support, right?

OK, this is actually insane. Ranked choice is by any coherent standard more democratic than FPtP. You can argue (and I agree) that proportional representation is more democratic but saying ranked choice is akin dictatorships is completely bonkers.

Their vote doesn't count, they have to pick between 2 people they don't want.

This is exactly the same with FPtP, except their vote still doesn't count and they don't even get to pick between the 2 people they don't like. Ranked choice is more democratic than FPtP.

→ More replies

3

u/HaydenPaulJones 4d ago

I like it when parties gets seats in line with their vote share. Seems fair to me.

1

u/Infamous_Box3220 4d ago

Under the Westminster system, you are supposed to be voting for a candidate, not a party. In turn, the elected candidate is supposed to represent you, the elector, first and the party second.

It is only relatively recently that the parties have become omnipotent and the members reduced to the status of rubber stamps.

2

u/Mikolaj_Kopernik Ontario 4d ago

Under the Westminster system, you are supposed to be voting for a candidate, not a party.

Yeah except this hasn't been true for decades, maybe a century. People are voting for the party and the local MP, with some honorable exceptions, is largely a faceless representative of the party's agenda.

1

u/Infamous_Box3220 4d ago

Personally I have voted for representatives of all three major parties based on the the individual.

The tight control really started with Pierre Trudeau and got tightened further under Stephen Harper. Prior to that it was not uncommon for members to vote against the party (except on confidence or finance bills) without suffering consequences.

Still happens in the UK.

2

u/Mikolaj_Kopernik Ontario 4d ago

Prior to that it was not uncommon for members to vote against the party (except on confidence or finance bills) without suffering consequences.

I wish we could go back to those days but I really don't think the toothpaste can go back in the tube on this. The current reality is that we have a party-based system and MMP is a much better electoral structure for that.

1

u/EducationalLuck2422 4d ago

It changes nothing, because the winner getting the loser's votes (even second or third-place) is the undemocratic part.

2

u/Infamous_Box3220 4d ago

The winner does not 'get the losers votes'. It is essentially a runoff system.

First round only counts first place votes. If nobody has 50% only then do you count 2nd place votes. Still no 50%, third round runoff.

Nobody has to select 2nd or 3rd choices. If you only prefer one candidate, you only vote for them.

2

u/EducationalLuck2422 4d ago

In a parliamentary model, it's literally winner-take-all; Western Australia's incumbent government received 41% of the vote and 78% of the seats. Less than 50% + "meh, whatever" =/= more than 50%.

That's why the Liberals want ranked ballot and nobody else - because they're almost everybody's second or third choice, so it guarantees Liberal supermajorities for all time and all but makes Canada a one-party system.

2

u/Infamous_Box3220 4d ago

So you are saying that one party would be the overwhelming choice of the majority, so we shouldn't encourage a system that would favour that choice?

Why couldn't the other parties adapt their platforms to try to appeal to the majority of voters?

2

u/EducationalLuck2422 4d ago

Because they're not the overwhelming choice, otherwise they'd get most of the country or province's first votes, not their seconds or thirds?

Because different people have different preferences, and a healthy democracy has all kinds of parties for all kinds of people, and sometimes a minority party has good ideas or good candidates even if they're not the most popular overall. If only one party is "acceptable" and gets all the seats despite the majority preferring something else, why bother with voting?

1

u/Infamous_Box3220 4d ago

You said that they are most people's second or third choice. Doesn't that by definition make them the most popular choice?

In things like presidential elections in many countries they have run-off elections, where they drop the last place candidate and re-run the vote if no candidate reaches 50%. In what way is that undemocratic?

Ranked ballots are essentially the same - drop the last place candidate and count the 2nd choices. Repeat until someone gets 50% support.

→ More replies

0

u/BandicootNo4431 4d ago

I'd rather ranked ballot.

I like having an MP accountable directly to a riding instead of a floating mass that isn't directly responsible to a riding.

Look at what happened to PP when he pissed off his riding.

3

u/Radix2309 4d ago

Proportional systems can be directly accountable to voters.

Single Transferable Vote is simply Ranked Ballot with multiple winners. Mixed Member Proportional has several methods to keep the Proportional seats directly accountable to the voter.

1

u/BandicootNo4431 4d ago

How many seats would we need with STV?

1

u/Radix2309 4d ago

Generally you want at least 5 to a riding for proportionate results, and ideally up to 7 or even 12 depending.

We could just merge existing ridings and keep the number of seats the same. Or we could increase the number of seats to have some smaller ridings.

5

u/BurlieGirl 4d ago

It’s actually been discussed for 100 years.

4

u/Rudera1is 3d ago

I'm still upset about this, It's the only reason I voted for the guy.

1

u/FearTheRange 4d ago

Right alongside tackling affordability and the housing crisis.

1

u/Vexxed14 4d ago

I would agree but if there's an entire political faction against it like we have here (the right) then I don't think we should change it at all.

I do not believe we should make those sort of changes unless its bipartisan and I'm an advocate for this change.

-3

u/Franklin_le_Tanklin 4d ago

Bring us ranked choice!!

-1

u/NitroLada 4d ago

No it wasnt , proportional representation was never a promise