Is it time for ranked-choice voting in Canada?
The results of the 44th Canadian federal election and their striking resemblance to the results of the 43rd election signal that it’s time to switch to ranked-choice voting.
Ian Rockwell is a graduate student at the Max Bell School of Public Policy. Originally from the U.S. state of Vermont, Ian’s background is in political science and U.S. government. He has previously worked in Washington, D.C. as a government relations manager and for Senator Bernie Sanders. He has a longstanding interest in how national electoral systems influence politics and policymaking. His views are his own.
(Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
BY NOW, YOU’VE PROBABLY HEARD A SIMILAR REFRAIN about this past week’s federal election: what was the point? And who can blame Canadians for thinking that. Despite some changes under the surface, Justin Trudeau will head a minority government almost identical to his last one. Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system is in part to blame for this frustrating outcome.
Canadian politics is in a bit of a rut. Since 2004, minority government has become the rule, not the exception, a phenomenon I would chalk up to negative partisanship – the overriding perceived need to prevent the “other team” from taking power. On the one hand, you have the Liberals successfully engendering distrust of Erin O’Toole’s Conservatives on issues such as guns and COVID-19 restrictions. The Tories meanwhile have seized on how the Liberals are not exactly trustworthy themselves; on SNC-Lavalin or the WE Charity scandal, the Liberals have left much to be desired on ethics in government. Trudeau’s “sunny ways” of 2015 have not translated to government in the sunshine.
To break out of the negative partisanship spiral, it’s time for Canadians to shake up their voting system. The electoral ritual of the Liberals and Conservatives begging smaller party and swing voters to vote for them, “or else,” needs to end. The two major parties should be forced to appeal to these voters, not just scare them. A system that forces more positive campaigning will reduce cynicism, make Canadians feel closer to their MPs, and create a more representative House of Commons. Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a way to make that happen.
RCV (also known as alternative vote) has been around for some time. Australia has used it for House of Representatives elections since 1919. In the Canadian context, it has a surprisingly long history – British Columbia used the system in 1952 and 1953, Manitoba (outside Winnipeg) from 1924 to 1955, and Alberta (outside Edmonton and Calgary) from 1924 to 1956.
Inherent in the RCV system is the belief that a winning candidate should have majority support. I think that’s a principle most people can agree with. Three-way and four-way elections leave supermajorities of voters in opposition to their MPs. Such results are unsustainable; they understandably lead voters to believe that government does not represent them. It makes tactical voting a constant source of angst and frustration.
A cursory glance of the election results shows many such frustrating races. Are the voters of Nanaimo-Ladysmith accurately represented by a New Democrat who won with only 29% of the vote? I’d say no. How about the voters in Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge, where a Tory won on 37% of the vote versus 57% combined for the Liberals and NDP? Again, I’d say no. University of Calgary professor Trevor Tombe put together a great chart of the 25 ridings where the Conservative plus People’s Party vote outstrips that of the winning party. Are those ridings’ results fair? Yet again, I’d say no (repulsive as I find the People’s Party). Granted, vote-splitting is a bigger problem on the left (there are 48 split Liberal-NDP ridings), but those on the right, I think, would be wise to remember the Reform-Progressive Conservative split, which helped Jean Chretien win three straight majority governments. If the party’s right wing, predominantly former Reformers, is as dissatisfied with Erin O’Toole’s leadership as reports indicate, RCV would give these disgruntled Conservatives an escape valve.
It’s worth noting that RCV is not proportional representation, which Canadians have routinely rejected (see Ontario in 2007, British Columbia in 2018, and P.E.I. in 2019). It would keep the existing 338 ridings. But it would give Canadians a real choice and make parties compete for more votes. To get 50% + 1, in most ridings all parties would need to broaden their appeal to win. When second- and third-choices matter, formal and informal alliances between parties become key, which in turn can lead to more positive campaigning, at least among parties near each other on the political spectrum. A majority threshold for election would go far in improving Canadians’ acceptance of the legitimacy of their elected officials, and by extension go a long way toward reducing cynicism.
That said, I’m under no illusion that RCV would solve every problem, or that it’d be easy to pass into law. Even though Justin Trudeau has expressed tentative interest in the idea, we’ve been here before:
It’s also overly simplistic to say all NDP voters will rank the Liberals second, or vice versa, or that all PPC votes would flow to the Conservatives. It’s clear that such neat alignments don’t happen on the provincial level: the B.C. Liberals, for instance, are more conservative than their federal counterparts, serving as an anti-NDP catch-all party.
And it’s entirely possible the Liberals and Conservatives will maintain their major party roles – going back to the Australian example, the Labor Party and the Liberal/National Coalition, Australia’s major political blocs, still win over 95% of the seats.
But regardless of the results, under RCV they would reflect Canadian voters’ full and true political preferences. All the major parties should agree on that point – after all, with some modifications, it’s currently how they all choose their party leaders. It’s a change worth implementing that maybe, just maybe, will restore some Canadians’ faith in their government. (IR)
President Biden seeking expansion on social programs, but funding remains uncertain.
After nearly three years of detainment, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor return to Canada shortly following the release of Meng Wanzhou.
Outrage follows US border patrol agents hounding Haitian refugees seeking asylum in the United States.
Germans head to the polls to elect Chancellor Angela Merkel’s successor.
Swiss referendum shows overwhelming support for the legalization of same-sex marriage and adoption.
The Bell is edited by Jaclyn Victor, Jason Kreutz, Shweta Menon, and Phaedra de Saint-Rome of the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University.
An interesting piece, but I would note that RCV in Australia means the main parties can largely ignore minority views within their own tents. If you know that the Marxists will give their ‘real’ votes to the Labor party, the Labor party can largely ignore the Marxists. There’s little danger they’ll move so far to the centre that the Marxists’ second preference will go elsewhere.
Perhaps this is its appeal but it’s led to the main political parties in Australia being even less distinguishable from one and other than the main parties in other Western democracies. Aggravating that phenomenon might not assuage the dissatisfaction of so much of the population. It might even exacerbate it.
It also leads to paper ballots that are ginormous and very hard to count!