FIRST-PAST-THE-POST (FPTP)

Q. What is First-Past-The-Post?

A. FPTP is the electoral system that has been used in Canada since Confederation. For almost 150 years, it has produced stable, representative governments that have delivered growth, prosperity, diversity, and a high quality of life. There is no reason to change something that has worked so well. 

Q. Why is First-Past-the-Post the BEST option for Canada?

A. FPTP honours the constitutional principle of representation, where Members of Parliament are elected by, and directly accountable to, their voters in a clearly defined area. It ensures that people have a direct link to their Member of Parliament, to express their views on government and policy initiatives.

FPTP is a straightforward system that is easy to explain and understand. Each person gets one vote, and the candidate with the most votes wins. 

Alternatives to FPTP will lead to different and perhaps worse problems for democracy, such as the exacerbating the dominance of party politics, the broken bond between voters and their Members of Parliament, and the lack of legitimacy in a system that appears rigged to benefit one party over the others.

Q. Who wants to change Canada’s electoral system?

A. Parties that do not have enough support to win seats under the traditional rules want to change the system to improve their chances. If fringe parties can accumulate enough support nation-wide, they may get a seat or two in Parliament. They may even wield considerable influence by propping up a coalition government, and advancing their pet projects by threatening to withdraw their support and letting the government collapse.

Some want to create an electoral system that will allow them to hold onto power in perpetuity. A party that is traditionally viewed as everyone’s second choice will benefit from a system that reassign votes from less popular candidates.  

Q. What is a wasted vote?

A. For those pushing for electoral system changes, a wasted vote is one that doesn’t go to a winning candidate. In Canada’s multi-party system, there will always be wasted votes using this definition. Changing the system merely changes whose vote is “wasted”.

For those who see their vote as a way to voice their opinions and values, no vote is ever wasted. 

When a person votes for the candidate or party that best represents their views, that voter has made their voice heard, even if their candidate is not elected. For example, even though the Green Party has only ever elected one MP, Green supporters have made their voices heard through successive elections, and because of this, environmental issues have become a top priority. Using this definition, the only wasted votes are those that are not cast.

Ultimately, political participation is more than casting a vote once every four years. Parties must develop policies and platforms that appeal to the electorate and earn their support. Changing the rules is no substitute for hard work and building a bigger tent.

RANKED CHOICE VOTING FAQ

Q. What is Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)?

A. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), also known as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), Alternative Vote (AV) and Preferential Vote (PV) is a voting system where people are asked to rank more than one candidate.

Q. How are RCV votes counted?

A. Votes are counted using a complex algorithm that redistributes votes from the least popular candidates. If no candidate gets over 50% of the first choice votes, the last place candidate is dropped, and those ballots are redistributed according to the voter’s second choice. This can be repeated a number of times.

Q. Does RCV guarantee a winner with majority support?

A. No. The winner in a Ranked Choice Voting election does not need majority support. Some winners in RCV elections have had as little as 24% of the total vote. This is because, as the counting and redistribution progresses, some ballots are exhausted when voters rank only one or two candidates, or spoiled due to voter error. The winner must have more than 50% of the ballots remaining in the final round, but not 50% of the total votes cast.

Q. Does the RCV take longer to count then traditional voting?

A. Yes.  Because of the complex algorithm and vote redistribution, it can take weeks to count the ballots and determine the winner. Counting machines may be considered, but they are costly, and raise issues of accuracy, security, and accountability.

 Q. Does RCV increase ballot errors?

A. Yes. In the few cities that have experimented with Ranked Choice Voting, studies have shown huge spikes in errors on ballots, particularly from the elderly, less educated, non-english speakers, lower socio-economic classes, and minority communities.

Q. Does RCV increase election costs?

A. Substantially. Extensive education campaigns must be undertaken prior to each election, and materials must be in all languages. As an example, Oakland, CA spent over $3.50 per voter in targeted education and still had upwards of 10% errors on ballots in precincts with high number of minorities. More electoral officers are needed at ballot booths to deal with increased line-ups and voter confusion, and they must be compensated for the additional time involved in ballot counting.

Q. Does RCV increase turnout in elections?

A. No. Cities that have used RCV have seen turnout drop to historic lows. Studies have linked this to the increased level of complexity in the process.

Q. WHERE IS RANKED CHOICE VOTING USED?

A. There are just 9 cities in the US that use RCV.  Many of these RCV elections have less than a thousand voters.  Australia uses RCV for its House of Representatives, however, recent studies have shown most Australians would like to return to First Past The Post.

Q. Have any jurisdictions repealed or stopped using RCV?

A. Several.  Burlington, VT, Pierce County, WA, Aspen, CO and the State of North Carolina have all repealed RCV after experimenting with it.  Cary NC, stopped using RCV and Telluride CO will stop using RCV after 2019.  San Francisco and Oakland both have attempted to repeal RCV.

Q. Have some jurisdictions rejected RCV at the ballot box?

A. Yes. Fort Collins, Colorado; Glendale, Arizona; Duluth, Minnesota; and the United Kingdom have all rejected attempts to implement RCV.

SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE (STV)

Q. What is Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)?

A. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), also known as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), Alternative Vote (AV) and Preferential Vote (PV) is a voting system where people are asked to rank more than one candidate.

Q. How are RCV votes counted?

A. Votes are counted using a complex algorithm that redistributes votes from the least popular candidates. If no candidate gets over 50% of the first choice votes, the last place candidate is dropped, and those ballots are redistributed according to the voter’s second choice. This can be repeated a number of times.

Q. Does RCV guarantee a winner with majority support?

A. No. The winner in a Ranked Choice Voting election does not need majority support. Some winners in RCV elections have had as little as 24% of the total vote. This is because, as the counting and redistribution progresses, some ballots are exhausted when voters rank only one or two candidates, or spoiled due to voter error. The winner must have more than 50% of the ballots remaining in the final round, but not 50% of the total votes cast.

Q. Does the RCV take longer to count then traditional voting?

A. Yes.  Because of the complex algorithm and vote redistribution, it can take weeks to count the ballots and determine the winner. Counting machines may be considered, but they are costly, and raise issues of accuracy, security, and accountability.

 Q. Does RCV increase ballot errors?

A. Yes. In the few cities that have experimented with Ranked Choice Voting, studies have shown huge spikes in errors on ballots, particularly from the elderly, less educated, non-english speakers, lower socio-economic classes, and minority communities.

Q. Does RCV increase election costs?

A. Substantially. Extensive education campaigns must be undertaken prior to each election, and materials must be in all languages. As an example, Oakland, CA spent over $3.50 per voter in targeted education and still had upwards of 10% errors on ballots in precincts with high number of minorities. More electoral officers are needed at ballot booths to deal with increased line-ups and voter confusion, and they must be compensated for the additional time involved in ballot counting.

Q. Does RCV increase turnout in elections?

A. No. Cities that have used RCV have seen turnout drop to historic lows. Studies have linked this to the increased level of complexity in the process.

Q. WHERE IS RANKED CHOICE VOTING USED?

A. There are just 9 cities in the US that use RCV.  Many of these RCV elections have less than a thousand voters.  Australia uses RCV for its House of Representatives, however, recent studies have shown most Australians would like to return to First Past The Post.

Q. Have any jurisdictions repealed or stopped using RCV?

A. Several.  Burlington, VT, Pierce County, WA, Aspen, CO and the State of North Carolina have all repealed RCV after experimenting with it.  Cary NC, stopped using RCV and Telluride CO will stop using RCV after 2019.  San Francisco and Oakland both have attempted to repeal RCV.

Q. Have some jurisdictions rejected RCV at the ballot box?

A. Yes. Fort Collins, Colorado; Glendale, Arizona; Duluth, Minnesota; and the United Kingdom have all rejected attempts to implement RCV.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION (PR)

Q. What is Proportional Representation?

A. Proportional Representation is a voting system where people vote for a party, rather than a local candidate.  Seats are awarded to parties based on their percentage of the popular vote, and filled from a list of candidates prepared by party operatives.

Q. Where is PR used?

A. Italy, Spain, Belgium, Brazil, and Israel, to name a few. 

Q. How does PR affect local representation?

A. PR weakens or eliminates the bond between constituents and elected representatives.  Members of Parliament are accountable to their party, not to voters. It also diminishes regional or geographic representation, which is a founding principle of Canada’s confederation. 

Q. Does PR provide stable governments?

A. No.  PR has created instability in many governments that have used it. It almost always results in minority or coalition governments. Alliances often take time to negotiate, leaving the government in limbo. Belgium took 541 days to form a government after the 2010 election. It also results in more frequent elections as coalitions fall apart. Spain is headed to its third election in less than a year.

Q. Would PR encourage more fringe and single issue parties?

A. Yes.  Because seats are provided based upon percentage of the national popular vote, fringe parties feel they have a better chance to get a seat. Spain had over 1,000 registered parties. In addition, fringe parties can hold the balance of power with just a few seats, and can advance their narrow agendas by threatening the collapse of the government. 

Q. Are hybrid voting systems the answer?

A. No. Hybrid systems retain many of the downsides of alternative systems, increase the level of complexity, and create additional negative consequences. For example, one proposal would result in two different classes of MPs, those that represent constituents and are accountable to them, and those that are chosen by their political party and not accountable to voters. Another proposal suggests using a different system for rural and urban voters, which would cause more confusion and division.