By Lesley Hastie
How can the federal Liberals prevent annihilation at the 2025 election? Lloyd Axeworthy, former Liberal Minister of Foreign Affairs said very recently that they should be using the year or so of runway ahead of the election to “change course in many ways” and “revive a former promise on electoral reform”.
But why are the Liberals likely to face defeat? Polling shows that changing the leader would make little difference to the party’s popularity and that after 19 years, people want change.
But why a disastrous defeat, possibly evisceration? We have an example of what might happen in this July 2024 UK election, in which the Conservative Party suffered the worst defeat in the 300 years of Britain’s democracy against a landslide victory for the Labour Party.
The parallel is that both Canada and the UK have the same first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. In the UK, the winning party, with only 36% of the popular vote, won 63% of the seats. If seats had been in proportion to the number of votes cast, Labour would now have 234 seats, the Conservatives 144 seats, and neither would have had an outright majority of 326.
Electoral Reform and a move to Proportional Representation (PR) would produce a far more equitable seat distribution in Canada’s House of Commons that mirrors the public will. This, in turn, would eradicate “false majorities,” where a single party with only a small majority of the vote wields enormous power, shackling opposition and muzzling dissent.
Under a PR system, future elections are likely to produce minority governments. From 1972 – 1974, Pierre Trudeau, supported by the NDP, ushered in some of the most progressive legislation in our history. The current minority Liberal government, under pressure from the NDP, has afforded cheap child daycare and dental care to eligible households.
Justin Trudeau promised in 2015 that this would be the last FPTP election. In 2016, his government said, “Federal electoral reform is part of the Government’s commitment to change. Canada has a strong and deeply rooted democracy. One way to protect our democratic values is by continuously seeking to improve the functioning of our democratic institutions— including our voting system”.
We are still waiting.
What happens around the rest of the world in the 36 countries with PR? (Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy)
- citizens are more satisfied with the performance of their countries’ democratic institutions,
- more women are elected to parliaments,
- there is higher participation politically, and greater civil liberties,
- they perform better in virtually every measure of good governance and corruption transparency,
- voter turnout is higher. (These data compare with Ontario’s last provincial election where Doug Ford came into power with a majority when only 18% of eligible voters voted for his party).
- decrease in partisan hostility in PR countries. People felt warmer toward any parties that had been in a coalition government with their preferred party any time over the previous 15 years,
- they are as stable as FPTP ones over 40 years with no difference in the frequency of elections,
- according to the Fragile States Index, 8 of the ten most stable countries in the world use PR, and sudden policy lurches occur less frequently,
- they set stricter environmental policies, act faster on climate change, and make 117% greater use of renewables. (Countries with FPTP are more vulnerable to climate policy reversals),
- PR countries have considerably lower levels of income inequality.
Guy Giorno, the Conservative Party’s former national campaign manager and former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Chief of Staff, said PR is the only principled approach that is not built to work for parties or politicians but for individuals to make our House of Commons or provincial legislatures reflect the diversity of their views.
The facts say it all. The time is now, Liberals. Save yourselves and everyone else, too. Give us some form of PR.
Lesley Hastie
Huntsville
Lesley and her husband Ian have lived in Huntsville since 2005. Originally from England and graduating as an economic statistician, she has worked for the UK Civil Service, the Ontario Statistical Centre, and as a teacher of IB economics and English as a Second Language. Her volunteer activities have included Human Rights, anti-poverty issues and climate change.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
Allen Markle says
Lesley Hastie: You got my vote. I mentioned this a while ago on Doppler and attracted such a lot of chest clutching and hair pulling. Even a bit of frothing. And I would want it both Federal and Provincial. This ‘landslide majority’ shtick is a becoming tedious. Four years of elected dictatorship, where any opposition has to sit quietly and suck it up.
Federally it is bad enough. An ‘apology’ a week for the first couple of years, then billions in subsidies to big oil so they can make gluttonous profits, and then pumping out cash to support a lot of “I’m so entitled”, but ungrateful people. And the majority may clamor but are given no voice.
In Ontario with our Premier, it’s all distraction. Booze. Booze. As far as the eye can see. Even a list of places where you can buy the stuff while the strike is on. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a whisky from time to time. But if it’s a list that tells me where I can buy booze, or a list that tells the needy where they can get health care, or an affordable home or rental they can afford, I’ll do without the booze. Might have to hit the bootlegger from time to time.
Premier Ford could maybe make that ‘old’ cottage accessible to a couple of needy families. Or the $750.00 a night plus $250.00 clean up money go to the local food banks. Think that could happen? Might that count as two units against the few hundred thousand that are advertised, but don’t seem to be getting built?
Proportional representation might at least give people hope. This ‘first past…’ crap has just turned into an end run around democracy.
Bob Sharpe says
Oh, so only when facing crushing defeat do you want to change the rules…LOL! Nope, we’ve seen your liberal “utopia” of no homes and triple the price of everything, you made your bed. I am eagerly awaiting 12~ years of Conservative leadership and hope we never, ever, see a radical left, criminally incompetent, amateur hour federal government again as Trudeau has shown.
Bob Braan says
Here’s an idea.
Trudeau/Liberals need a boost in the polls.
The Science Centre needs some minor repairs.
Toronto is looking to take over the Science Centre.
Trudeau should step forward and fund the repairs for Toronto and demand Ford reopen the Science Centre.
Win-win-win.
Under Ford Ontario continues to lose, lose, lose.
Trudeau just has to repeat what engineers and architects have stated which is the opposite of Ford’s false claims/lies.
The costs and time for repairs according to Ford are “grossly inflated” according to architects and engineers.
Search “The true cost of repairing the Ontario Science Centre is much, much less than what Infrastructure Ontario has been saying—and the proof is in its own documents”
Repairs can easily be done with the Science Centre open.
It wouldn’t be the first time Trudeau provides funding for a provincial responsibility when Ford refuses.
Ford refused to spend hundreds of millions in Covid money he got from the feds, for example.
The feds have already bypassed Ford with funding for housing by going directly to municipalities.
Ford then whined about being bypassed.
But Ford claims he’s at 99% of his housing target right now.
More lies.
Only because he started counting LTC beds and basements as homes.
Search “Ford government begins boosting housing numbers with LTC beds, basements”
BJ Boltauzer says
Mr. Sharpe, Proportional Representation system would prevent execceses and incompetence of all would be dictators of all political hues. There would be co-operation among parties for the good of all.
Nathan Cockram says
What self-serving tripe. Essentially, this article is:
“I don’t like the fact that my chosen party is going to lose the next election, so let’s overhaul the voting system”.
Just like your beloved Justin, you would quickly drop talk of PR if the Liberals were in a commanding poll position.
And this isn’t to mention all of the problems plaguing PR systems. FPTP is far from perfect but it works better than any other system.
William Kidd says
I don’t understand exactly how pr would work. How is a leader (prime minister) selected? I do know that one time a liberal got elected in Parrysound Muskoka because the reform and conservative vote was split. Remember Andy Mitchell? That meant that I did not get the conservative rep I wanted.
Maybe Leslie can give an explanation how pr works.
Joanne Tanaka says
Thanks Leslie for this discussion. Eye-opening to see the data about voter turnout much higher in other OECD countries. If proportional representation improves voter engagement in democracy then that is a very good thing. I have experienced difficulty to get any meaningful or even automated acknowledgment of my concerns by our local, provincial and federal representatives. No thoughtful, transparent response to constituents. That is how democracy is broken. We already have a Conservative MP, so changing to Pierre Poilievre will not fix democracy. Voting is now the only avenue to being heard by so called democratic, elected representatives who act like sock-puppets of any colour.
Bill Spring says
When I look at the popular vote in Canadian Federal Elections over the 50 years, 3 times a party has formed the government without a majority of the popular vote, the last 2 Liberal victories and the 1979 Conservatives.
Parities remained in control an average of about 8 years with only the Liberals enjoying a run of more than 10 years ( during that 13 year stretch, they did maintain a majority of the popular vote). The current Liberal regime has had control for 9 years now ( not 19), the last 5 of which, they held less than the majority of the popular vote.
I might be wrong, but that’s what I picked up from searching election results.
I am not challenging that voter turnout may improve with a PR election process, but it wouldn’t have changed the results of who formed the government except for the last 5 years of the Liberal government and 1 year in 1979 for the Conservatives.
Bill Beatty says
Sounds suspiciously like Republican tactics in the U.S. as proposed by far right supporters who want to change rules , electoral boundaries, eligibility to win elections . .leave it alone. Issues increase voter turnout as the next election will show !
John Rivière-Anderson says
Well said, Lesley.
The facts on long-standing Proportional Representation employed by the OECD countries clearly show its democratic advantages. Canadians can learn and benefit from their functioning example.
Nothing to be afraid of: In eliminating disproportionate “landslides”, voters of all political stripes have a voice in careful, civilized debate and balanced good governance.
David Harrison says
I am a firm believer in citizens of their country having the responsibility to vote. Make the vote compulsory. To take the partisanship out of the process, one of the voting options is to always have a ‘none of the above’ box to tick off. If ‘none of the aboves’ are a majority then the parties must nominate a new slate of candidates for a by-election. This makes it less lickly for the unqualified and radicals to get chosen.
The problem with Proportional Representation is that the individual looses the ability to effectively vote for their chosen candidate and the platform on which he or she stands. ‘The party’ gets who will decide who gets a seat.
Bill Spring says
I should have said that 3 times, a party has formed the government without the highest % of the popular vote, not the majority.
Hugh Holland says
Thank you, Lesley, for this important and informative article. I admit that I used to be skeptical about proportional representation. But the facts are clear. In these increasingly tumultuous times, the countries with proportional representation systems have not only much better voter turnout, but consistently rank at the top of virtually every measure of economic, environmental, and social stability. But don’t take my word for it, and don’t take the word of those whose gut reaction is automatically against proportional representation. I encourage all readers to invest some time to check it out the economic, environmental, and social rankings for themselves. This is too important to just spout the party line without doing any research.
Bev Belanger says
Thank you for your insightful article Lesley. The people should hold politicians accountable for their promises.
Hugh Mackenzie says
Leslie: I don’t have any real problem with first past the post. It has worked in Canada for more than a century and a half and we still have one of the finest countries in the world. However if there must be election reform, I believe there is a much better option than proportional representation. As you say proportional voting would likely mean minority governments, but they don’t always work, to wit this current government who are losing to the extent they are at least in part because they have moved too far to the left to satisfy the whims of the political party that is keeping them in office. As well, proportional voting effectively does away with constituencies, Canadians would no longer have local members. They would not choose their member of Parliament. This would be done in the back room of political parties who would be hard pressed not to appoint their elite friends and financial donors. Ordinary Canadians would have little chance to sit in Parliament. .
If election reform is really needed a much better option would be to vote by ranked ballot where the winning candidate must eventually get at least 51% of the vote before being declared the winner. This would allow constituencies and local representation to remain intact and prevent the need for run-off elections. I do agree that in a democracy, every person of age, has a responsibility to vote.
Jonathan Wiebe says
Sadly the Liberals lost respect and created more cynicism towards politicians after promising PR in 2015 (when polling in 3rd place) and quickly dropping said promise after clinching a majority government. “We promised what!!!?”
Arleigh Luckett says
Two points in response to previous comments.
1) Proportional representation is a fundamental principle of a number of different electoral systems. In some votes are cast for candidates in other party preference takes priority. Some use ranked ballots. To learn more about how it might be done in Canada voting for candidates go to localpr.ca
2) A minority government based on proportional representation functions quite differently than a minority government where the parties always have their eyes on how they can become all powerful in the next election.
3) Under proportional representation the prime minister is elected by parliament just as our PM is elected according to the Canadian constitution. In practice, the cabinet often includes ministers from more than one party.
Allen Markle says
Hugh: Your comment “They (Canadians/ Ontarians) would not choose their member of parliament. This would be done in the back room……” Like what happened when our present MPP was chosen. I remember no list of candidates offering their name and heard of none being encouraged by the people in that “back room”. S simple appointment. I see no harm in changing something if it failing to perform and in my opinion our democracy is teetering.
And with Project 2025, of which Donald Trump pleads ignorant, does that sound like government and
constitutional reform south of the border? Does that sound like the loss of judicial power and the focus of government under the president and his minions. Oh sure it’s all conjecture for now, but one election and it’s another civil uprising.
Right across the border.
And Arleigh Luckett, it all sounds good to me. Do we have politicians dedicated enough to democracy, to get it done?
Nathan Cockram says
Allen Markle:
MPP Smith wasn’t appointed, he was elected. You are talking nonsense.
Hugh Mackenzie’s point was directed at a well known flaw of PR systems, which is that it decouples politicians from constituencies, who are then even less responsible to citizens. Only the party.