The electoral system could use some minor tinkering

The Record
Eric Davis
May 25, 2009

On May 12, British Columbia held a referendum on whether to keep its existing
electoral system, commonly referred to as "first-past-the-post," or to completely
change it to another, far more complex system called "single transferable vote."
Voters in that province voted overwhelmingly to keep its current system by a
margin of 61 per cent to 39 per cent.

Does that mean that the first-past-the-post system is perfect? No.

No electoral system is perfect. Each comes with its own unique set of problems
and occasionally produces outcomes that are hard to predict. But instead of
attempting wholesale change, as was proposed in B.C. and as previously
proposed in Ontario (a mixed member proportional system was defeated in a
2007 referendum), a more moderate "third way" towards electoral reform might
be advisable; something simple, that keeps many of the benefits of our current
system.

One of the biggest issues with our current system is that a member of Parliament
(or member of provincial parliament for that matter) can be elected in a riding
without getting a majority (50 per cent plus one) of the vote. For example, in the
2008 federal election, Conservative candidate Stephen Woodworth in Kitchener-
Centre was elected with 36.7 per cent of the vote and Conservative candidate
Peter Braid was elected in Kitchener-Waterloo with 36.1 per cent of the vote.

The vast majority of people in both ridings did not even vote Conservative but
they now have a Conservative MP representing them in Ottawa.

A moderate, third way toward electoral reform would be to adopt an alternative

vote system (also referred to as "preferential balloting"), whereby voters indicate
not only their favourite candidate -- their first preferences -- but also their second
choice, third choice and so on. When the first preference votes are counted, if
one candidate gets a majority of the first-preference votes, he or she is elected
and that's that.

However, if no candidate wins a majority, the last place finisher -- the candidate
with the lowest number of first preference votes -- is eliminated. Then the voters'
alternative choices come into play. The second choices of those whose favourite
candidate has been eliminated are distributed to the remaining candidates. This
process continues until one candidate has a majority (50 per cent plus one) of
the votes and is elected.

The key advantage to the alternative vote system is that every MP in every riding
must obtain a majority of the vote to be elected. The MPs who are elected under
this system are those who were preferred by a majority of their constituents. If
this is applied nationwide or provincewide, we end up with a government that is
preferred by a majority of the people.

Also, under the alternative vote system there is absolutely no point in voting
strategically. One can vote for smaller, or single-issue parties, without fear of
one's vote being "wasted."

The alternative vote system ensures that Canadians can still enjoy the benefits
of our current electoral system, such as majority governments and one MP for
every riding but, perhaps more importantly, it also keeps things simple.
Unfortunately, as many people do not appear to pay much attention to politics, if
you're attempting to introduce a new and very complex electoral system, a lot of
people will automatically choose to stick with the current system because it's at
least easy to understand and you know what you're going to get.

The alternative vote system addresses one of the major problems of our system
without necessitating a wholesale change of our entire system of government. It
is a modest approach, but one that could work.

Eric Davis is a lawyer in Waterloo.

http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/article/542166