Two specific systems, mixed-member proportional? and pure first past the post, compared on grounds of party proportionality (and other factors such as gender or ethnic proportionality, locality, and etc.)

There is no such thing as a "strictly proportional" system in any large country, due to the problem of people electing those not from their region to represent them. That is, party proportionality is not the only goal of an electoral system. Other goals include community or region cohesion, bioregional identity, the representation of minorities. Some of these tend to vary with proportionality, others (like the ability of representatives to defy party leaders) are sharply curtailed by the more proportional systems. Electoral reform efforts will usually make reference to many such goals. Very well-balanced systems that deal with all these considerations are relatively recent in design and not implemented anywhere, e.g. the bioregional democracy models BSTV+C+P, B5AV+C+P.

From most to least party-proportional the modern electoral systems actually used in developed nation?s are:

• mixed member proportional? - the most proportional
• single transferable vote - nearly proportional
• first past the post - a nickname for plurality voting in single-member districts; this system is the least proportional and often leads to false majority? rule

Canada, the USA?, and India now rely almost exclusively on first past the post for municipal, regional and national elections. A few municipal exceptions include Cambridge, Massachusetts, and San Francisco (which uses runoff voting? for its Mayor?). Proposals for Toronto to adopt a strong Mayor? system have also included preference vote? provisions so that no one gains these powers without being acceptable to a majority of the population. However, there is no proportional consideration in electing a single executive, so these municipal examples are not relevant to the problem of party proportionality in regional and national elections.

In 2004, the Law Commission of Canada recommended a more proportional representation system that requires no constitutional amendment?. Their report Voting Counts: Electoral Reform For Canada recommends switching from the present first-past-the-post (FPTP) system of electing MPs to a Additional Member System. Voters would still choose an MP to represent their riding (which would be enlarged), but they would also vote for a party. An additional group of MPs would be elected from provincial lists based on each party's percentage of the popular vote. The report states:

"For the past decade or so, Canada has been in the grip of a democratic malaise evidenced by decreasing levels of political trust, declining voter turnout, increasing cynicism toward politicians and traditional forms of political participation, and growing disengagement of young people from politics. ... While there is no single magic bullet that will instantaneously stimulate Canadians' involvement in the political system . . . electoral-system reform is a good starting point for energizing and strengthening Canadian democracy."

The Prince Edward Island electoral reform referendum, 2005?, however, soundly rejected a mixed member proportional? system, such a system receiving only 38% of the vote. While the British Columbia electoral reform referendum, 2005, for a less proportional single transferable vote system, received over 57% support and over 50% in 77/79 districts - and nearly 50% in the remaining two. Accordingly the Law Commission recommendations, which much more closely resemble the rejected PEI system, are quite unlikely to be implemented.

Fair Vote Canada? .org, with a number of related entites in each province of Canada?, has advocated the Citizens Assembly model as used in BC, to determine what reforms should be proposed to the population.

Governments the world over have been adopting PR as a goal of electoral systems for over a century (whether before then they have been otherwise democratic or not). They have responded to the recognition that PR is fairer and more democratic than are other electoral systems, including the FPTP system that is used by Canada's federal, provincial, and local governments.

The fact that Canadians have yet to adapt such a system may be attributed to the self-interest of the "status-quo" parties, across the country. The FPTP system not only promotes the interests of the ruling parties despite their lack of popular support, it lessens their motive to change the system. (Semi-proportional systems were tried briefly in several Canadian cities in the early 1900s.)

argument for: FPTP is not "fair"

Canada's present FPTP electoral system is unfair and undemocratic. Under FPTP:
- each constituency is represented by only one Member of Parliament? (MP). Each MP then misrepresents all those who did not vote for her/him. All of those citizens' votes are therefore wasted:
- majority governments are elected sometimes with the support of less than half of the popular vote. In 1997, for example, the Liberals won a majority government with the support of only 38% of all Canadian voters;
- the FPTP electoral system better suits elections contested by only two parties. In elections contested by more than two parties, it benefits the most dominant parties, marginalizing all others. Consequently, since Confederation, only two parties, the Liberals and the ever-name-changing Conservatives have ever been elected to majority power;
- to avoid casting 'wasted' votes for their preferred party, many people feel compelled to cast 'strategic' votes for a party that they dislike but that they believe has a chance at defeating a party they dislike even more;
- the two dominant parties' election campaigns focus too much on discrediting one another, encouraging people to vote for one or the other of the dominant parties by default, rather than campaign positively, honestly informing people of their own party's promises and aspirations;
- voters are cynical and apathetic about politics. Only 60% of eligible voters cast a vote in the 2004 federal election.

argument for: PR is "fair"

PR will appeal to all of these people by:
- ensuring that party representation in government is proportional to how people vote. That is, a party that receives 48% of the popular vote wins 48% of the seats;
- ensuring that all parties that receive at least 5% of the popular vote win at least 5% of parliamentary seats (if such a threshold is adopted);
- enabling voters to rank their constituency candidates by preference so that candidates with the greatest aggregate support will win the seat and, thereby, ensure that all votes count;
- electing MPs who are both directly accountable to their constituencies and are more accountable to the more overarching issues and concerns of the party;
- enabling people to vote independently for their prefered candidates and their preferred parties;
- producing coalition and minority governments that fairly represent the diverse citizenry and that are necessarily more transparent;
- facilitating party candidates lists that encourage balance in terms of demographics, ideology, and minority representation;
- producing governments that are much less influenced by and perhaps are even resistant to the corporate lobby;
- in effect, encouraging all parties to reach out even to constituencies that may not be warm to them in order to inform the voters of their platforms in an effort to increase their vote, thus producing a better-informed public debate;
- empowering people with the knowledge that their votes will count and make a difference. This empowerment results in increased voter turnouts. Typically, voter turnout in countries with PR averages between 80 and 85 percent, compared to around 70% in countries with FPTP systems.

argument for: no more majorities

PR would put an effective end to majority government?s if implemented. Since it is highly unlikely any party would receive more than 50 per cent of the national popular vote (the last time was in 1984, when there were only three parties in the House of Commons), elections would almost certainly result in one or two parties having a substantial, but not majority, share of seats, with several smaller parties holding the balance of power.

Forming a government could take days or weeks of protracted negotiations, and the resulting coalition government would be less stable than a traditional majority government. If no coalition is possible, a minority government will remain, and probably be quickly defeated, resulting in much more frequent elections (every 12-18 months instead of every 40-54 months). This will be expensive and keep every party in the confrontational stances they take during elections, all the time. This is certain to polarize? political debates as parties keep looking for advantage in the next election, rather than looking for solutions they can all agree on.

argument for: no more independents

Also, independent candidate?s like Chuck Cadman? and Andre Arthur?, and those who contest party leader over control of elected representative?s, like Carolyn Bennett, could not be elected or would immediately lose their seat if seats are allocated to parties, not to actual elected persons. Canada already gives party leaders far too much power, and strengthening that with a party list? based system, will and should be wholly unacceptable to the public.

The People's Parliament was convened by a citizen’s coalition based in the National Capital Region. It will meet on Parliament Hill on January 21-22, (what year???) the last weekend before the 39th Federal election (add date, please). This Parliament operates as an E-parliament (in this forum) both before and after the event.

It promotes PR by example: the 127 MPs in the People's Parliament demonstrate proportionality by party, gender and community affiliation when combined with the 308 incumbent MPs in Canada's 38th Parliament. Some un-elected (losing) candidates have been nominated, but most MPs will be ordinary citizens.

Be "MP for a day"! We are searching for credible individuals from all parties and communities to form a representative set of extra MPs. Some un-elected candidates have been nominated, but most MPs will be ordinary citizens. Are you a Canadian citizen as old as 18? You are eligible!

MPs will be chosen to ensure more balanced representation for women and minority communities. In a perfect democracy in which we are all free from prejudice towards each other, representation would be roughly proportional because of the laws of probability. Our Parliament proves that we do not all enjoy an equal voice. Are you a woman, a member of a visible minority, a person with a disability, gay or lesbian...? You are under-represented, and you are needed!

The People's Parliament is non-partisan. It is also neutral about the model of PR that is best for Canada. Many communities and party organizations endorse it. It is one of many citizen initiatives in support of PR and equal representation for all.