Liberal election victory in Canada provides another chance to consider reform for our electoral system

Originally appeared in Markham Economist & Sun, yorkregion.com

It has been nearly a month since the election, and after a recount in Quebec, the Liberals have gained another seat. Putting aside the fact that millions of Canadians voted out of fear rather than hope, the election outcome remains striking — despite securing less than 44 per cent of the popular vote, the Liberals now control nearly 50 per cent of the seats.

While the difference may seem minor in percentage points, in practical terms, 44 per cent of 343 seats should amount to 151 seats, yet the Liberals have won 170, two shy of a majority government. Those extra 19 seats could have gone to other parties, allowing
for broader representation.

This discrepancy stems from Canada’s first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system, where the candidate with the most votes in each riding wins — regardless of whether they secure an outright majority. Why did the Liberals secure nearly 50 per cent of the seats with less than 44 per cent of the vote?
1. Geographic vote concentration — The Liberals won a large number of ridings in Ontario and Quebec, which together make up 200 of Canada’s 343 electoral districts. Their dominance in these high-seat provinces gave them a major advantage.
2. Vote efficiency — Conservative votes were heavily concentrated in Alberta, where they won nearly every seat. However, this limited their
ability to translate their national support into more seats across the country.
3. Decline of smaller parties Decline of smaller parties Decline of smaller parties — Support for the NDP, Bloc Québécois, Greens and People’s Party of Canada declined, benefiting the two largest parties — especially the Liberals, who more effectively capitalized on the shift.

A proportional representation (PR) system could help correct the mismatch between the popular vote and seat distribution by ensuring the percentage of votes a party receives is more accurately reflected in the number of seats they win.

How PR could help:
1. Fairer seat distribution — A party receiving 41.3 per cent of the popular vote would be assigned roughly 41.3 per cent of the seats,
preventing vote concentration from distorting representation.
2. Reduces wasted votes Reduces wasted votes Reduces wasted votes — In FPTP, votes for losing candidates don’t contribute to representation, leaving millions of votes unaccounted for.
PR ensures more votes count toward actual seats in Parliament.
3. Encourages multi-party representation — Smaller parties would gain seats more fairly, rather than being sidelined by the dominance of two major parties. This could lead to more coalition governments, promoting broader perspectives in governance.
4. Eliminates regional vote imbalances Eliminates regional vote imbalances Eliminates regional vote imbalances — With FPTP, certain provinces are disproportionately dominated by a single party. PR ensures that minority voices within regions receive representation aligned with overall voter support.

Of course, PR presents challenges as well — some argue that coalition governments require compromises that can lead to political instability. To balance proportional fairness with local representation, some countries have adopted mixed-member proportional (MMP) systems as a middle ground.
Canada’s electoral system continues to spark debate, and as the results of this election show, reform discussions remain relevant.

Mimi Lee is a board member of Fair Vote Canada and lives in Markham.