Why I reject our voting system and rejected my ballot

First-past-the-post and tax give-aways means some Canadians have more equal say than others

Analyze this: with Richard Shillington

  There are loads of problems with our electoral systems - it's better perhaps them many others but there's plenty of room for improvement.
  Our electoral system has come to this sorry state not just because of "first-past-the-post", but also because political fund raising, electoral spending, supplicant backbench MP's and a committee system controlled by the Prime Minister's Office.
  Our arcane voting system creates a House of Commons which does not represent the diversity of opinion in Canada. In 1997 this system translated 19% of the vote into 20 seats for the Conservatives and 60 for the Reform.
  The system favours regional parties like the Bloc. It certainly does a disservice to "fringe" opinion. The current system does wonders, though, for parties in power; in Ontario half the popular vote for Liberals delivered 98% of the seats (101 out of 103).
 

We're drifting toward uniformly low turn-outs in each region

  The tables and graph below show how Election 2000 led to a perverse representation of the diversity of opinion in Canada.

Preliminary Results of 2000 Election
Party	Seats		Votes
	#	%	#	%
Bloc Québécois	38	13%	1,373,747	11%
Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance	66	22%	3,262,816	25%
Liberal Party of Canada	172	57%	5,230,222	41%
New Democratic Party	13	4%	1,091,056	9%
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada	12	4%	1,564,230	12%
Others		0%	291,576	2%
Total	301	100%	12,813,647	100%

  The Liberals received about 41% of the vote for the 63% of the electorate who showed up, or about 25% of the electorate. They have virtual dictatorial power for 4 or 5 years (or any shorter period they alone choose).

  The growing disaffection with politics would appear to be affecting voter turn-out. The data in the attached table compare 1984 with 2000. The turn-outs decline in each province but there are strange observations. For example, turn-outs are still highest in PEI. There appears to be a trend toward levelling - we're drifting toward uniformly low turn-outs in each region.

Voter Turn-Out
	1984	2000	% Change
Nfld.	65.5	57.0	-13%
P.E.I.	84.6	72.7	-14%
N.S.	75.4	62.7	-17%
N.B.	77.3	67.8	-12%
Que.	76.2	64.1	-16%
Ont.	75.8	58.0	-23%
Man.	73.2	62.3	-15%
Sask.	77.9	62.3	-20%
Alta.	69.1	60.2	-13%
B.C.	77.6	63.0	-19%
Yk.	67.9	63.5	-6%
N.W.T.	77.9	53.2	-32%
Total	75.3	61.2	-19%

  The percentage declines were lowest in Yukon and highest in NWT and Ontario. Again I don't know why but its certainly raises questions...
  Another dysfunctional aspect of our democracy is in political finances. It begins with the unprecedented generosity of the tax assistance to supplement the funds contributed to the party by supporters. Corporations can deduct contributions as business expenses. Political contributions by individuals get the most generous tax treatment of anything in the tax code. Contribute to a political party and get 75% of your contribution back as a tax credit. While it's a big incentive for ordinary Canadians to contribute - something the NDP has long understood - it also encourages wealthy people to give the maximum allowable to their parties of choice. Thousand-dollar-a-plate fundraisers for Tories, Liberals and Alliance attest to the power of the massive tax breaks offered for political giving.
  The political parties apparently have a very wide discretion to spend these funds. These may including such items as clothing allowances, golf memberships, and home furnishings. Joe Clark, Preston Manning, and Stockwell Day have all had their lifestyles enhanced by their respective, tax-supported parties.
  While still looking at spending it's interesting to look at the 1997 Election Results based on money spent.

1997 Election Results...	Spending (millions)	Votes (millions)	Seats
Liberal Party of Canada	$ 17.5	5.0	155
Reform Party of Canada	$   8.8	2.5	60
Progressive Conservative Party	$ 11.0	2.4	20
New Democratic Party	$ 14.0	1.4	21
Bloc Québécois	$   2.1	1.4	44
Others	$   1.9	0.2
Total	$ 55.3	13.0	301

  These data show a wide range of spending from $17 million for the Liberals to $2.1 by the Bloc. But compare this to results... The poor NDP got 1.4 million but spent almost as much as the Liberals, who got 5 million.
  Expressed another way, the data show the NDP spending about $10 per vote compared to the relatively 'cheap' Liberal and Reform votes which cost $3.50 each.
  The Bloc by this measure appear ultra efficient. By concentrating in one province they pay about a buck fifty per vote.

1997 Election Results...	$ / Vote	$ / Seat
Liberal Party of Canada	$ 3.50	$ 112,779
Reform Party of Canada	$ 3.50	$ 146,659
Progressive Conservative Party	$ 4.49	$ 549,113
New Democratic Party	$ 9.77	$ 667,237
Bloc Québécois	$ 1.54	$   48,639

  Of course under first-past-the-post, votes in the House of Commons depend on seats, not plurality. Looked at this way, the Bloquistes are, again, good shoppers, spending just under $50,000 per seat. The Liberals and Reform spent $112,000 and $147,000 respectively. The poor Conservatives spent $550,000 per seat won which seems unfair, but is only topped by the NDP who paid $667,000 per seat.
  So parties spend various amounts to garner votes which we translate into seats based on 'first-past-the-post'. The largest number of seats determines the government, and the leader of the governing party appears to operate like a dictator.
  Of course, the greatest impediment to electoral reform is that the party in power obviously benefited from it.
  Like to be part of making it better? So would I. Please visit us at: www.fairvotecanada.org.

Richard Shillington, Ph.D., is a statistician who specializes in the quantitative analysis of health, social and economic policy.

Other articles from Analyze this...

Posted: February 05, 2001

[ Front Page ]