Why Canada Needs to Ditch the First-Past-the-Post System

Why Canada Needs to Ditch the First-Past-the-Post System
(REUTERS/Chris Wattie)

“Democratic legitimacy should not be a partisan issue; we, as Canadians, should all be taking this opportunity to discern how to make the country a more inclusive and participatory place.”

(REUTERS/Chris Wattie)
“Democratic legitimacy should not be a partisan issue; we, as Canadians, should all be taking this opportunity to discern how to make the country a more inclusive and participatory place.”

Introduction

The possibility of electoral reform has been making waves again in Canada with Quebec, the country’s second largest province, flirting with the idea of a referendum on breaking with the first-past-the-post electoral system. For readers unfamiliar with the intricacies of Canadian politics, first-past-the-post is the colloquial name for a plurality voting system where voters cast a ballot for a single member “riding” (electoral district/constituency).  The candidate who receives the most votes, even if they don’t win an outright majority, becomes the Member of Parliament representing a particular riding. The system is similar to the way Americans elect the House of Representatives, with the exception that the party which wins the most ridings typically forms the government, thus fusing the legislative and executive branches of government.

The system was adopted from the British model and has the benefit of typically producing strong federal governments. Many saw this as a necessity in the early years of Canadian independence, when many feared a potential American invasion or fractures between the French and English populations killing the young dominion in its cradle. Today, these concerns are less pressing, and many are now criticizing the first-past-the-post system for its tendency to concentrate too much power in the hands of a winning party. In particular, since only a plurality of votes is needed to win a riding, it tends to reward big tent parties with majority governments, even if less than forty percent of voters cast a ballot for them.

The Argument for Reform

These calls to reform the system locally are joined to a more sustained campaign for  sweeping changes at the national level. Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party initially promised that 2015 would be the last Canadian election held under the current model, though they quickly backtracked on that promise. Nevertheless, change continues to be debated at the provincial level, with major national parties continuing the fight for reform federally. These calls have sparked euphoria for some and outrage from others, who feel that the current system has served Canada well. Conservative media, in particular, has been critical of the push for electoral reform. Some of this occasionally just reflects an unreflective dedication to the status quo for its own sake. But other contentions have more merit to them. In particular, many have acknowledged that there is a serious problem in a federal or provincial party pushing for change if it has only received the electoral backing of a minority of citizens. Baptizing a new and more democratically-representative electoral system with the tarnish of undemocratic unilateralism may well be hypocritical. This is why many such critics claim that only a referendum where a clear majority of votes express a desire for electoral reform can legitimate efforts to move forward. As many critics pointed out, a political party backed by thirty-nine percent of voters has no business invoking democracy to change a system that has been around for over 150 years without broader legitimation.

The rest is for members.

All proceeds go toward publishing more writers and poets.

Free for 30 days, then $3 a month

Become a member

Already a member? Sign in.
Can’t pay? Ask us.

Publisher's Note:

This work is preserved in Merion West’s archive of articles and poems published from 2016 through early 2025. Explore the archive