Freedom Flyer May 1990 Cover

Freedom Flyer 16

the official newsletter of the
Freedom Party of Ontario

May 1990




Article electronically reproduced from:

The Burlington Post

November 22, 1989


Reforming Canada's election laws

By WILLIAM FRAMPTON

After last year's federal election many observers commented on the unrepresentative outcome produced by the Canadian electoral system. However, so far the reformers have overlooked the root cause of the problem.

In federal and provincial elections, the candidate who receives the most votes in each constituency is elected. Sometimes the winner may actually have a majority of the votes cast, but often there is no such majority, and the winner merely has a larger minority share than the others. In either case he or she supposedly represents everyone in that constituency.

This claim to represent all constituents is clearly fallacious. On such diverse issues as abortion, capital punishment, free trade and government spending - to name just a few - there is always disagreement about what, if anything, should be done. As a result, the elected member must always choose which of his constituents he will represent on each issue. In doing so he or she in- evitably chooses not to represent the others.

Even those who vote for the winner cannot be properly represented by this system. X-voting forces the elector to vote as though he considers his preferred candidate ideal and all the others abominable. It presents the voters with a "package deal" in which they must accept the bad along with the good. The voter's X falsely implies complete endorsement of the candidate he votes for.

Since it is impossible for any single elected member to represent the manifold opinions and interests of his constituents, the problem can only be resolved by adopting an electoral system which provides the voters with more than one representative. There are many alternatives to choose from, but only one can effectively resolve the real problem, the power political parties wield over the individual voter.

This system is the single transferable vote (STV), a multimember preferential system devised in the 19th century. It gives the voter the widest possible freedom of choice and produces approximately proportional representation. The Irish parliament, the Australian Senate and the Tasmanian state legislature are all elected using STV.

The details of its use vary from place to place, but the general procedure is the same. The elector has one vote, and ranks the candidates in order of preference from 1 to n. Irish voters can make their ballots non- transferable by not ranking all candidates.

When the voting is completed, the first preferences are counted and the electoral quota is determined. This is the number of votes a candidate requires in order to be elected. In a four-seat constituency the quota would be just over one-fifth of the votes cast. If 100,000 votes were cast, the quota would be 20,001, because once four candidates reach this number they cannot possibly be overtaken, since only 19,996 votes remain.

Once the first preference votes are counted, candidates who have reached the quota are declared elected. Their surplus votes are transferred according to the voters' second preferences. When all surpluses have been transferred, the lowest candidate is eliminated. His or her votes are redistributed among the remaining candidates according to the second and, if necessary, lower preferences. This process is repeated until all the seats are filled.

Under STV every vote counts, since the voters can transfer their support to other candidates if their first choice is not elected or piles up a landslide victory. They no longer need to worry about wasting their vote - if they are impressed with a particular candidate who they think may not attract enough votes to win election, they can indicate second and third choices.

STV means people power as opposed to party power, since it allows individual voters to choose between candidates as well as parties. If a voter thinks an incumbent member of his preferred party is not doing a good job, he can vote against him without voting against his party. This allows the voters to replace members they are unhappy with and substitute members of the same party. They can bring new blood into the legislative chamber without having to throw out the government in the process.

Voters in Tasmania took advantage of this feature when they went to the polls in 1986. Fifteen of the 35 incumbents were defeated, including the speaker of the legislature and two former cabinet ministers. Despite this, the party standings remained exactly the same as before the election.

When vacancies occur they can be filled in either of two ways. A by- election can be held to fill the vacant seat, just as it is under our present system. The vacancy can also be filled using a procedure known as a "count back", in which the successful candidates at the previous election are reconsidered. The retiring member's votes are distributed as though he or she had not been elected, and the votes are recounted from that point. This allows his supporters to decide who his replacement will be.

Political parties wield much less power under STV than under any other system. None of the candidates can be elected without reaching the quota unless the others have all been eliminated. Consequently, the candidate's standing with the voters is more important than his position within his party. The voters alone decide who will represent them - not the party hierarchies or the electoral boundaries.

Our traditional voting system reflects the philosophy of majority rule, produces "representatives" who are elected against the expressed wishes of many voters, and gives political parties undue power over all citizens. Only the single transferable vote can resolve these problems. Therefore it should be adopted for all federal, provincial and municipal elections.

A Burlington resident, William Frampton is Metro Region vice-president of the Freedom Party of Ontario.




Contact FP
Freedom Flyer Newsletter

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002

FP logo (small)