Voting is one of the most important expressions of political freedom in a democracy. But casting a ballot in a municipal, provincial or federal election is not the only time in our lives that we are asked to participate in a voting process. We might vote to determine what activities we do with friends. We have all been in a situation at one time or another when we voted on what movie to see or who would be captain of our neighbourhood sports team. As citizens or members of a community, we might be asked to elect the chair of a volunteer association or advocacy group. As members of a political party, we might vote to elect party leaders. Members of the House of Commons vote to elect the Speaker of the House. Shareholders in corporations cast ballots to elect their board of directors. In all of these instances, we vote to select people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. What do we expect from our representatives in such circumstances? How are these expectations different from what we expect from municipal, provincial and federal politicians?

Discussion Points

• Why is voting important?
   
• Why do we vote in municipal, provincial or federal elections?
   
• Do the reasons we vote in municipal, provincial or federal elections differ from the reasons that we vote in other areas of our lives?

This chapter reviews some alternatives to the first-past-the-post voting system, beginning with a look at methods of voting that take place outside of municipal, provincial and federal elections. It then examines some voting systems used in other parts of the world. The objective of this chapter is to put the first-past-the-post system into context by comparing the way we vote in provincial and federal elections with the way we vote in other circumstances, and with the way other countries vote. This chapter raises two basic questions. Why do we use different voting systems in different circumstances? Why do other countries elect their representatives differently?

Voting Outside Municipal, Provincial and Federal Elections

We often vote to select representatives or to decide options. In Canadian society, a multiplicity of voting mechanisms are used in different circumstances. Some mechanisms rely on territorial divisions; others are structured in a way that ensures that the winner is elected with a majority (more than 50 percent) of the vote. Below are some examples to demonstrate the variety of voting processes used in our daily lives.

One example of an alternative voting system can be found in the process of electing political leaders. Most federal and provincial parties in Canada use a "run-off" system to elect their leaders. If, for example, three or more candidates are vying for a party's leadership, and no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the votes on the first ballot, a second ballot is held. Candidates who do not receive a certain percentage of the vote are dropped from the second ballot. Subsequent votes may be necessary if a majority winner is not declared on the second ballot. The objective of the run-off system is to elect the candidate that has received at least 50 percent of the vote.

As an example, suppose a party decides to elect a new leader. There are five candidates on the ballot. After the first ballot, the leading candidate (Candidate A) receives 40 percent of the vote, Candidate B receives 20 percent of the vote, C and D have 15 percent each, and E has 10 percent. Since more than 50 percent of the vote is necessary to win the election, a second ballot is necessary. In most instances, the weakest candidate (E) is dropped from the list and a subsequent vote is held. Following the second ballot, Candidate A receives 54 percent of the vote and is declared the winner.

In the House of Commons, Members of Parliament also elect the House Speaker using a majority system (the Speaker must receive 50 percent of the vote).

Discussion Points

• Why do political parties and politicians use a different method to elect their leaders than the one Canadians use to elect them?
   
• Why do we have different voting systems for different circumstances?
   
• Can we learn something from these different systems?

Professional organizations and unions also use different ways to elect their representatives. For example, the Public Service Alliance of Canada requires that their Executive Vice-Presidents and their alternatives be elected with a clear majority of ballots. Similarly, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers requires that their national representatives be elected by a majority (at least 50 per cent) of the delegates assembled at their convention. In Quebec, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec also requires that their officials receive a clear majority of votes.

The Law Society of British Columbia elects its Benchers (members of the Board of Directors) using an alternative vote system. The organization holds elections for 25 Benchers (lawyers who are elected by other lawyers in regions across British Columbia). If more than two candidates in a riding enter an election, then voters indicate their preferences for candidates by rank-ordering them (first, second, third choice). The ballots are then counted and each voter's first preference is recorded. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and a second count is conducted by distributing the second preferences on those ballots among the remaining candidates. The first candidate to receive a majority of the votes is declared the winner. McMaster University Students' Union uses a similar voting system in its presidential elections to ensure that the successful candidate receives a majority of the votes (50 per cent plus one).

Just as different organizations use different electoral processes, so do other democratic countries. The following section examines some alternatives to the first-past-the-post system.

Voting Systems in Other Countries

This section briefly discusses three alternative voting systems: the Alternative Vote, Mixed-Member Proportional voting and Alternative Vote Plus. These are not the only alternatives to the first-past-the-post system, but they provide an indication of some of the ways that other countries have faced issues applicable to the Canadian context and proposed or implemented reforms.

The Alternative Vote, also referred to as "instant run-off voting" is used for various levels of elections in Australia. It is designed to ensure the winner receives a majority of the votes. Mixed-Member Proportional voting, which is used in Germany and was recently implemented in New Zealand, combines the first-past-the-post system and proportional voting. Alternative Vote Plus, which was recommended for the United Kingdom by the Independent Commission on the Voting System, combines elements of the instant run-off system and proportional voting.

The Alternative Vote

The Alternative Vote is a "majoritarian" system designed to ensure the winner receives 50 per cent of the vote. There are several similarities between the Alternative Vote and the first-past-the-post system. For example, if Canada was to adopt the Alternative Vote for federal elections, its 301 ridings would remain the same, and voters would continue to vote for one representative per constituency. The main difference between the Alternative Vote and first-past-the-post systems is how the winner is selected.

To illustrate how this system works, consider the results of an election in the fictional riding of Windy Pines. The four candidates contesting this election are from the Poplar, Elm, Fir and Maple parties. On Election Day, voters are given a ballot and asked to rank-order the candidates listed. For example, let's say your first choice was the candidate from the Poplar Party, followed by the Elm Party candidate, the Fir Party candidate and, finally, the Maple Party candidate. On your ballot you would put a "1" beside the name of the Poplar Party candidate, a "2" beside the Elm Party candidate and so on. There does not have to be a requirement that you rank-order all the candidates on the ballot (although it is mandatory in Australia to rank-order all of the candidates on the ballot). You may decide to pick only one candidate (the Poplar Party candidate), or your first two choices only (the Poplar Party and Elm Party candidates).

After the votes have been collected, one of two things can happen. If a candidate captures a majority of votes after the first count, a winner is declared and the process ends. However, if no candidate receives a majority of the votes on the first count, the weakest candidate is eliminated (from the ballots of those who selected that candidate as their first preference) and the second preferences from those ballots are redistributed to the respective candidates. This process is repeated until a candidate has gained a majority (more than 50 per cent) of votes.

In the fictional riding of Windy Pines, after the first count, both the Poplar Party and Elm Party candidates received 35 per cent of the vote. Meanwhile, the Fir Party candidate received 20 per cent of the votes and the Maple Party candidate received 10 per cent. Since no candidate received a majority of the votes, a second count is necessary to determine a winner. Table 2 illustrates the results of the three counts that were needed to decide the election results in the Windy Pines riding using the Alternative Vote System.

Table 2

Mixed-Member Proportional

Another alternative is New Zealand's Mixed-Member Proportional voting. In 1993, following a period of national discussion and debate, New Zealand held a referendum on electoral reform as part of its general election. Fifty-four per cent of the voting public supported a switch from the first-past-the-post system to Mixed-Member Proportional voting.

Part of the pressure to change New Zealand's voting system resulted from a growing disillusionment amongst voters following a series of skewed election results and unpopular government policy decisions, both of which contributed to a general decline in trust in government. In 1984, the ruling Labour Party initiated a Royal Commission to investigate reforming the electoral system. The Commission was given broad terms of reference, which included examining the length of Parliamentary terms, the nature of Maori representation, the advisability of increasing the number of MPs and whether or not the method of electing representatives to Parliament should be changed.

In 1986, the Commission tabled its report, Towards a Better Democracy. The report recommended adopting a German-style, corrective, mixed system, called Mixed-Member Proportional. The Commission supported this system for its ability to maintain links between constituents and elected representatives, which was believed to be an important component of the country's existing political culture. At the same time, adopting aspects of Mixed-Member Proportional voting would help improve fairness to political parties, as well as increase representation of women, Maori and other minority groups.

As a result, in New Zealand, about one-half of the seats in Parliament are now constituency seats that are decided through the first-past-the-post system (the Electoral Vote). The other half is determined on the basis of proportional voting (the Party Vote). For the Party Vote, each party produces a list of candidates that voters look at before casting their Party Vote. The idea is that voters select the party whose list of candidates they most prefer. The candidates on these lists are then used to fill the seats that each party receives from the Party Vote. A mathematical formula is used to ensure that a party's share of seats in Parliament is proportional to the percentage of votes it receives from the Party Vote portion of the ballot.

The mock ballot (Table 3) helps explain how this voting system works. The left hand side of the ballot is used to determine the constituency portion of the election process. After the ballots are counted for this part of the vote, Candidate D from the Poplar Party has won the seat in the Windy Pines riding with 40 per cent of the Electorate Vote.

The Party Vote side (the right hand side) of the ballot is used to determine a party's share of seats in the Parliament (this is the proportional element of the voting system). The vote on this side of the ballot is used to help establish proportionality within the Parliament.

To further illustrate how Mixed Member Proportional voting works, we have produced results that are based on the 1999 General Election in New Zealand (party names have been changed to reflect the examples that have been used throughout this paper). There are a total of 120 seats in this mock Parliament, approximately half of which are based on proportional representation. Table 4 illustrates the results of this election.

From this example, it is easy to see how a party's share of seats in Parliament (% of seats) closely resembles the proportion of votes it received from the Party List portion of the election process (% of Party List Vote).

Table 3 Mixed-Member Proportional Voting You Have Two Votes

Electoral Vote (This is the first-past-the-post portion of the ballot) This vote decides the candidate who will be elected Member of Parliament for the Windy Pines riding. Vote by putting a tick beside the circle immediately before the candidate you wish to choose Vote for only one candidate	Party Vote (This portion is used to determine a party's share of seats) This vote decides the share of seats each of the parties listed below will have in Parliament. Vote by putting a tick beside the circle immediately after the party you choose. Vote for only one party
Candidate A   Elm Party	Elm Party
Candidate B   Fir Party	Fir Party
Candidate C   Maple Party	Maple Party
Candidate D   Poplar Party	Poplar Party

Note: This mock ballot is taken from New Zealand's Electoral System: How Parliament is Elected, Elections New Zealand: http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/esyst/govt_elect.html (Date Accessed: July 07, 2002). The candidate and party names have been changed to reflect the examples used in this discussion paper

Table 4

Proportional Representation is being introduced or considered even in traditional bastions of plurality. New Zealand has adopted a mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) system combining traditional plurality-style single-member constituencies with proportional representation. Britain has adopted mixed-member proportional representation for the new Scottish and Welsh assemblies, uses the single transferable vote form of proportional representation in Northern Ireland, and is contemplating a change to a partially proportional system for the Westminster parliament in London. Australia, an ex-British colony like Canada and New Zealand, has used a mixture of majoritarian and proportional systems for most of the past century.

J. A. Cousins (2000), "Electoral Reform for Prince Edward Island: A Discussion Paper," The Institute of Island Studies, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island (www.islandstudies.com), p. 4.

Alternative Vote Plus

Another alternative to Canada's first-past-the-post system is the Alternative Vote Plus, which has been proposed recently for the United Kingdom, the home of the "mother of Parliaments." Proposals for electoral reform have recently resurfaced following the work of the Independent Commission on the Voting System (the Jenkins Commission). In the late 1990s, the Jenkins Commission recommended changes to the way people in Britain elect representatives to their House of Commons, arguing the traditional first-past-the-post voting system should be replaced with a two-vote, "mixed" electoral system, referred to as Alternative Vote Plus. For more information about the Jenkins Commission, see Appendix B.

The Alternative Vote Plus system is a two-vote process that combines elements of a majority vote system (for example, the Alternative Vote) with proportional voting. First, voters rank-order the candidates on the ballot (first, second, third choice). This portion of the system operates in the same manner as the Alternative Vote system. However, in Alternative Vote Plus, voters cast a second Party Vote, similar to that described in Mixed-Member Proportional voting, above. This second vote helps reduce the disproportionality that emerges at the local level. This "top-up" method permits final election results to better reflect the percentage of the popular vote that a party receives. The Alternative Vote Plus system has yet to be adopted in the United Kingdom.

In our fictional example of the Windy Pines riding, in Alternative Vote Plus voters would vote twice. The first vote would work the same as the Alternative Vote system already described. However, in Alternative Vote Plus, voters cast a second vote on each ballot to help establish some proportionality between votes and seats. This "top-up" vote is not decided in each constituency, but at the county or regional level (in Canadian federal elections, the second vote would be decided at a provincial or regional level).

A mock ballot (Table 5) helps visualize how Alternative Vote Plus works. The left hand side of the ballot corresponds to the Alternative Vote method of electing a candidate at the constituency level. The right-hand side corresponds to the proportional method of calculating the number of "top-up" seats to better reflect the percentage of the popular vote.

Table 5
The Alternative Vote Plus System

Constituency Vote This vote will help to decide who is the constituency MP for Windy Pines. Rank the candidates in order of preference (1 for your preferred candidate, then 2, 3, etc.). Rank as many candidates as you wish.	Second Vote This vote will help to decide the total number of seats for each party in the Coniferous Region. You may vote either for one party or, if you wish, for one of the listed candidates. A vote for a listed candidate will also be counted as a vote for that candidate's party.
Place the candidates in order of preference (1, 2, 3, etc.)	Either put an X against the party of your choice Or Put an X against the candidate of your choice
Candidate A Elm Party	Elm Party   Candidate name   Candidate name   Candidate name
Candidate B Fir Party	Fir Party   Candidate name   Candidate name   Candidate name
Candidate C Maple Party	Maple Party   Candidate name   Candidate name   Candidate name
Candidate D Poplar Party	Poplar Party   Candidate name   Candidate name   Candidate name

Note: This mock ballot is taken from O. Gay (1998), Voting Systems: The Jenkins Report, Home Affairs Section, House of Commons Library (Research Paper 98/112, 10 December 1998), p. 32. The candidate and party names have been changed to reflect the examples used in this discussion paper.

This section examined different ways that we vote in our lives, as well as different voting systems in other countries. What can we learn from these examples? Why do we use different voting systems for different circumstances? Perhaps these different ways of voting are related to different values that people want to see reflected in their voting systems? What values do Canadians want to see reflected in our voting system? The next section will explore how values relate to electoral systems.

Though never dominating public discussion, voting system debates had been percolating through British public consciousness for at least two decades. The governing Conservatives brought the topic back to life in 1973 when they mandated the use of PR [proportional representation] for elections in Northern Ireland as one response to emerging social and political tensions there. However, the representational quirks of Britain's traditional single member plurality system really made headlines when the party with the most votes lost the February 1974 election. In that instance Labour triumphed over the Conservatives despite enjoying slightly less public support. In a way this just reversed a previous injustice; in 1951 it was Labour who suffered, losing to the Tories despite getting more votes. But the situation in the 1970s was complicated by a further injustice to the third place Liberals, a party whose negligible support in 1951 (3%) had mushroomed to 20% in the back-to-back elections of 1974. Yet the Liberals secured less than two percent of the seats in the House of Commons, fewer seats in fact than much less popular regional parties. These disturbing trends motivated a number of ruminations about electoral reform, including the highly touted Hansard Commission Report of 1976 that called for a semi-proportional additional member system.

D. Pilon (2002), Renewing Canadian Democracy: Citizen Engagement in Voting System Reform, Phase One: Lessons from Around the World, Law Commission of Canada, Ottawa, p. 35.

After reviewing a number of options, the [Jenkins] Commission proposed that between 80 and 85 percent of the House of Commons MPs [Members of Parliament] should be chosen by the Alternative Vote in single-member constituencies, while the remaining 100-130 positions would be filled on a corrective basis from PR [proportional representation] lists allocated within small "top-up" areas based on existing counties and metropolitan districts.

A. Reynolds (1999), "Electoral System Reform in the United Kingdom," Making Every Vote Count: Reassessing Canada's Electoral System, edited by H. Milner, Broadview Press, Peterborough, p. 177.