Editor’s note: Kaija Belfry Munroe is a Canadian Politics Professor at Quest University Canada
As a professional observer of Canadian Politics, I’ve often wondered if we could do better than our current electoral system: Single Member Plurality (SMP). SMP regularly leads to false majorities in legislatures — a majority of seats to a party that received a minority of votes.
These parties often govern for long periods of time (for instance, 16 years!). The stability brought by SMP can be good for a country or province: when governments aren’t afraid of losing power, they are willing to take bold actions and implement long-term programs. But, when those false majorities govern for too long or in contrast to majority political views, our system starts to look undemocratic.
Our current system is also inherently adversarial: one party governs, the other opposes. The result: political parties avoid compromise and consensus-building in favour of hyperbole and partisan attacks.
Should we do things differently? This fall, British Columbians will vote in its third referendum on changing our electoral system to one based on proportional representation.
Proportional representation refers to electoral systems that aim to bring the percentage of votes and the percentage of seats won in the legislature into alignment.
On the ballot this fall, you will be asked two questions: do you want to switch to proportional representation and, if so, which system do you like best? There are three PR systems on the ballot. Dual Member Plurality (DMP) would double the size of our ridings to allow for two-member districts, with one elected under the old system and another through a separate system to create province-wide proportionality. Mixed Member Plurality (MMP) also keeps the current system, but adds a second component: a group of members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) elected from party lists to create more proportionality.
Finally, Rural-Urban Proportionality (RUP) would create two different systems in the province. In urban areas, multi-member ridings would be allocated using the single transferable vote. In rural ridings, voters would continue to use the current system. Unlike the others, Mixed Member Plurality has been used successfully in both Germany and New Zealand.
Changing electoral systems is a bit like moving houses: it will be frustrating in the short-term, particularly for political parties, but likely worth-while in the long run. If you are down-sizing from a ranch in the Squamish Valley to a townhouse downtown, you’ll need to change behaviour to achieve your goals. Need new windows? Call the property manager, not the repair company. This would feel strange at first, even frustrating, but you’d figure it out. The same would hold true for parties in a new system. When New Zealand switched from SMP to MMP in 1996, the first governing coalition took 90 days to form. Since then, however, parties have learned the rules of the game and developed a stable and functioning system. In 2011, a majority of New Zealanders voted to keep Mixed Member Plurality in a second referendum.
I tend to be uncomfortable with making big changes to our political system. I’m an incrementalist: baby steps are better than large leaps. But, sometimes, jumping in with both feet can actually make things better. Systems of proportional representation are certainly worth our consideration.
