Click here for the PDF version of this document
This appendix looks at Canadian values identified in five of the main consultative processes on electoral reform across the country in recent years and assesses whether they can be satisfactorily addressed under a made-in-Canada PR system as compared to a majoritarian system (FPTP or Alternative Vote).
These tables summarize the reasons why each of these processes chose some form of PR as their preferred option.
The five consultative processes in question are:
- In 2004, the Law Commission of Canada released a 200 page report, “Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada,” following two years of study, 15 public hearings across Canada, an internet questionnaire, and over 30 other meetings.
- In 2004, the New Brunswick Commission on Legislative Democracy released its report “Making Your Vote Count,” following a year of public hearings, community leader roundtables, online submissions and academic research.
- In 2004, the BC Citizens’ Assembly released its report following a process which brought together 160 citizens in an intensive, participatory forum to examine electoral reform. The year long process included 50 public consultations which identified four core values important to voters.
- In 2006, after 27 public hearings in 2003 by the Estates-General on the Reform of Democratic Institutions, and consultations in 16 cities across the province by the Select Committee on the Election Act and the Quebec Citizens’ Committee in response to a draft bill presented in the National Assembly for a MMP system, the Select Committee and the Citizens’ committee both recommended that the proposed system be made more proportional.
- In 2007, the Ontario Citizens Assembly conducted 41 public consultations and released its report following intensive study and direction by an all-party committee of MPPs to recommend improvements to the voting system based on the values identified by the MPPs and the members of the Assembly.
For more information on the evidence relating to families of systems based on comparative research, please see Appendix 1 of this Submission.
To hear the reflections of the non-partisan members of past consultation processes about why proportionality was so important to them, see “Appendix 7: Reflections from Participants of Past Processes”.
Law Commission of Canada (2004)
Value | Met by Proportional System | Met by Majoritarian System | Notes |
Representation of parties (proportional representation) | YES | NO | PR systems may include a threshold but Law Commission did not recommend one |
Demographic Representation | YES | NO | PR systems better reflect all diversity |
Diverse Ideas | YES | NO | PR systems represent diverse ideas and media covers more diverse policy discussion |
Geographic Representation | YES | YES | All PR systems for Canada keep local representation |
Effective Government | YES | YES | Majority governments formed through majoritarian systems or PR systems are equally stable but PR systems represent voters accurately. |
Accountable Government | YES | YES | Depends how you define accountability. A government only accountable to its base is not responsive to all Canadians |
Effective Opposition | YES | YES | Opposition can often be seriously weakened in majoritarian systems. There have been elections in New Brunswick, PEI and BC where opposition was reduced to only one or two MPs or even completely eliminated. |
Valuing Votes | YES | NO | About 52% of voters in the last federal election elected no-one. |
Regional Balance | YES | NO | With PR systems, no single party can sweep every seat in a region – diversity is represented |
Inclusive Decision Making | YES | NO |
British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly (2004)
Value | Met by Proportional System | Met by Majoritarian System | Notes |
Fair election result (proportional representation) | YES | NO | |
Effective Local Representation | YES | Partial | Under STV you receive a collection of local MPs. Under SMP, half the voters did not support MP |
More Voter Choice | YES | NO | Choice of candidates of the same party |
More Inclusive, Consensual Politics | YES | NO |
Commission on Legislative Democracy – New Brunswick (2004)
Value | Met by Proportional System | Met by Majoritarian System | Notes |
Fair Representation (PR, and better representation of women) | YES | NO | |
Equality of the Vote | YES | NO | |
Local Representation | YES | Partial | See above |
Effective Government | YES | YES |
Quebec Citizens’ Committee (2006)
Value | Met by Proportional System | Met by Majoritarian System | Notes |
Equality of Votes, Wishes of Electorate (proportional representation) | YES | NO | |
Reflect Diversity of Ideas in Society | YES | NO | |
Maintain Current Political Weight of Various Regions | YES | YES | Proportionality by separate regions in large provinces |
Ontario Citizens’ Assembly (2007)
Value | Met by Proportional System | Met by Majoritarian System | Notes |
Fair Election Results (proportional representation) | YES | NO | |
Legitimacy (of process and results) | YES | YES | |
Stable and Effective Government | YES | YES | |
Stronger Voter Participation | Possibly | NO | |
Accountability | YES | YES | |
Simplicity and Practicality | YES | YES | Over 80% of OECD countries use proportional ballots |
Strong Local Representation | YES | Partial |