Anita Nickerson says YES
Executive director of Fair Vote Canada, a multi-partisan movement for electoral reform
The most compelling reason to adopt proportional representation is that it’s fair to all citizens. With first-past-the-post (FPTP), majority governments can be elected with the support of only 39 per cent (or less) of voters. In a democracy, a party with a minority of voter support shouldn’t be able to wield 100 per cent of the power.
First-past-the-post is especially unfair to citizens who vote for smaller parties. In 2008 almost a million Canadians voted for the Green Party, which received zero seats. With almost the same number of votes, the Bloc Québécois saw 49 MPs elected.
FPTP also harms national unity. In 1993 the Bloc became Canada’s Official Opposition with a mere 13.5 per cent of the vote. This was ludicrous, considering the party advocates for Quebec seceding from Canada. At the provincial level, the separatist Parti Québécois could win a majority government in 2026 with 33 per cent of the vote.
First-past-the-post exaggerates regional tensions. Canadians aren’t as divided as FPTP suggests. A party can win every seat in a region even if a large minority of people living there voted for other parties. For years Conservatives didn’t have even one MP in Toronto, and Liberals didn’t have any in Alberta.
In 1979 the federal Task Force on Canadian Unity (Pepin–Robarts Commission) concluded that proportional representation was “urgent and of very high priority.” Since then our politics has become more polarized. Most alarming is how people increasingly see those with different political views as immoral or dangerous. This isn’t a healthy debate but a descent into “us” vs. “them,” increasing the risk of violence.
Experience in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries shows that proportional representation leads to more co-operative and less polarized politics. Almost every vote counts, giving everyone a reason to cast a ballot. Citizens are fairly represented in parliaments, and more points of view are considered, leading to more broadly accepted public policy. Local representation is strengthened. Voters in every region can elect MPs from the governing party and opposition parties alike as advocates. Cabinets can more easily include MPs from every region; no region need dominate or be excluded.
Proportional representation also acts as a crucial safeguard to prevent an extremist leader of a party with only minority support from gaining complete control.
Proportional representation has a strong track record. About 80 per cent of democracies in the OECD use such systems, including democracies ranked as the world’s strongest. These countries outperform ones with winner-take-all systems on economic growth, population health and environmental protection.
In short, proportional representation is fair, it works and it’s long overdue in Canada.
lydia miljan says no
Professor and head of political science at the University of Windsor
You must give proponents of proportional representation (PR) credit; they are relentless in their desire to change our electoral system despite the public repeatedly rejecting the proposition. Since 2005 Canada has had six provincial referenda asking citizens if they’d like to change how we vote. In all cases the majority didn’t want change or so few people cast ballots that there was no mandate for change. Additionally, both the federal and the Quebec governments have made highly publicized promises to change the electoral system, only to abandon them without offering any alternatives to the status quo.
Our current system, based on plurality, is colloquially known as first-past-the-post. The winning candidates receive the most votes in a constituency. Crucially they don’t need a majority of votes, just more than any other candidate. The fact that in many ridings the winner gets less than 50 per cent of the vote leads electoral reform advocates to complain that votes are “wasted” or results don’t reflect the popular vote.
The problem with this argument is that the metric often used is the total vote compared to the percentage of seats allocated in the House of Commons. While it’s true that not every riding is won with a majority, in some federal elections one-third to half of the electoral districts are won with at least 50 per cent of the vote. Over the last six federal elections roughly 40 per cent of ridings were won with a majority. In 2012 nearly half of Canada’s ridings (47 per cent) were won by candidates who earned a majority of the vote.
In Alberta elections it’s quite common that most seats are won with a majority of votes. In 2019, for example, the UCP won a majority in 53 of 87 ridings. In 2023 it got more than 50 per cent of the vote in 47 ridings. Rather than reveal a flaw in the electoral system, these outcomes demonstrate how vote share can be determined by effective party campaigns. They also reflect our geographical differences and allow us to guard against factions of the majority that live in cities, thus giving rural and remote communities their say in elections.
Canada’s multi-party parliaments are unusual. Duverger’s law argues that plurality systems like ours generally lead to two-party dominance. That Canada subsidizes smaller parties by issuing tax credits to their donors and reimbursing some party campaign expenses only increases the likelihood of fewer ridings being won with a majority vote.
In contrast, PR systems often see many more parties elected than typically win in Canada. This is in part because there’s less need for parties to compromise before elections, which creates the illusion of more choices for the electorate—an illusion because PR often leads to minority governments, which require post-election negotiations to form coalitions. Voters are excluded from these negotiations and have little say in the final composition of the government.
anita nickerson responds to lydia miljan
Lydia Miljan claims that advocates for proportional representation are “relentless,” and on that we agree. We are relentless in advocating for an electoral system grounded in fairness, in which 30 per cent of the vote gets a party 30 per cent of the seats. Every voter should matter, not just voters in a few swing ridings. We are relentless in support of a fundamental principle of fairness embraced by the world’s strongest democracies.
The principle of proportional representation is also supported by a strong majority of Canadians. A 2025 EKOS poll showed that 68 per cent of Canadians agree with proportional representation and only 21 per cent oppose it, echoing national polls over the past 20 years.
Miljan points to a history of divisive and confusing provincial referendums as a reason that citizens should give up and walk away. These were referendums launched by politicians with dubious motives, plagued by partisanship and misinformation. Research from the OECD shows that countries that moved to proportional representation did so through multi-party agreement, where parties were willing to co-operate and compromise. Achieving proportional representation requires politicians to put their country first and show real political leadership.
Miljan points to the fact that in six consecutive elections, in about 40 per cent of ridings, the MP got more than half the popular vote—as if that shows the FPTP system is working. In fact, it speaks volumes about just how many voters are unrepresented. She misses the point of proportional representation, which is to make every vote count and to ensure that, overall, Parliament reflects how Canadians voted.
Whether an MP received 30 per cent, 40 per cent or even 60 per cent of the vote, the question remains: Who represents the other voters? Why should one group of voters in a riding receive the representation of their choice while others get no voice in Parliament? Canadians aren’t satisfied with a system where millions of votes have no impact, and where “majority” governments are formed with 39 per cent of the vote. Institutionalized minority rule that shuts out a majority of voters isn’t democratic.
Why should some voters in a riding receive the representation of their choice while others get no voice?
Miljan states that FPTP outcomes better reflect our geographical differences and give rural and remote communities their say. What FPTP actually does is grossly exaggerate our regional differences, making us appear more divided than we really are, pitting regions against each other and hastening another national unity crisis.
In the 2025 federal election Liberals won 23 of 24 ridings in Toronto (96 per cent of the seats) with just 58 per cent of the vote. Conservatives won 13 of 14 seats in Saskatchewan (93 per cent) with just 65 per cent of the vote. This wall of urban red vs. wall of rural blue is an outcome manufactured by our current electoral system, and it’s a recipe for alienation and polarization.
With proportional representation, seats in every region would reflect all of the people who live in that region, not just the biggest group. It would produce a kind of politics that aims at understanding one another, finding common ground and working together.
Miljan argues that Canada’s multi-party Parliament with FPTP is unusual because first-past-the-post typically shuts out smaller parties—as if achieving that is the ideal outcome. In the 2025 election, Canadians on the left and right flocked to the two biggest parties, motivated to block a party they opposed from winning a false majority. This two-party situation is where FPTP has taken us—but is it really where Canadians want to go? A 2025 post-election poll showed that 63 per cent of Canadians think the country has never been more polarized. By a margin of two to one, Canadians think domination by two parties is bad for our democracy.
The US has become a flashing billboard for what can happen when a winner-take-all system reduces a country’s politics to two warring camps and where a single party or leader can be handed far too much power. For several years the Economist Intelligence Unit has been warning in their Democracy Index reports that Canada’s political problems, particularly rising levels of polarization, are beginning to resemble those of the US. By contrast, the most successful democracies use proportional representation and have multi-party systems. Stable majority coalitions are the most common government in the OECD. Finding solutions by collaborating with other parties is preferable to a single leader with a false majority being able to ram through legislation supported by a minority of voters while being abhorred by large parts of the country.
That’s why countries with PR outperform countries with winner-take-all systems on policy outcomes ranging from economic growth to population health. Parliaments elected this way are stable, representative and create policy that takes into account the views of more citizens.
lydia miljan responds to anita nickerson
In her argument for proportional representation, Anita Nickerson conflates how we vote with other factors that impact the vote. She presents several reasons why Canada should adopt a PR system, but each point either makes no material difference or exacerbates the flaws she identifies.
First, she argues that FPTP is unfair for voters of small parties, as their votes don’t translate into seats. Small parties are small because they typically don’t co-operate or compromise. Consequently, proportional systems have more parties and less co-operation in terms of platforms and campaigning.
Second, she claims that the current system harms national unity, pointing to when the separatist Bloc Quebecois formed the official opposition. The Bloc’s success was not due to FPTP; it was because Quebec has 78 seats. Changing to a PR system wouldn’t alter Quebec’s seat allocation. While it may be unsettling to have the Bloc as official opposition, the issue lies with the Conservatives’ failure to run a winning campaign in 1993, not the electoral system.
A separatist party would still be competitive regardless of the electoral system. Comparing the Greens and Bloc nationally is disingenuous; the comparison should be to the provincial level. In 2021’s federal election, the Greens garnered only 1.5 per cent of the Quebec vote; the Bloc got 32.1 per cent. This explains why the Greens failed to get a seat in Quebec.
Third, she suggests that FPTP exacerbates regional tensions, implying that minority views in provinces dominated by one party aren’t represented. She cites elections where the Liberals had no seats in Alberta and the Conservatives had none in Toronto. This isn’t necessarily due to the voting system but to specific party platforms and leaders. The lopsided results can’t be placed solely at the doorstep of FPTP. Campaigns matter, and party competitiveness influences outcomes. For example, in the 2021 election Albertans elected two NDP and two Liberal MPs. In that election, nearly two-thirds (65 per cent) of Alberta’s 34 ridings had winning candidates with over 50 per cent of the popular vote. Liberal victories were narrow, with George Chahal winning by 6.3 percentage points and Randy Boissonnault by 1.3 points. Blake Desjarlais (NDP) won by a 3.5 per cent margin. Yet even in Alberta, Heather McPherson (NDP) won with a majority (60.7 per cent).
Majoritarian systems like first-past-the-post punish extreme views on both the left and the right.
Fourth, Nickerson claims that PR systems reduce political polarization and the chances of extremist politics. But evidence suggests otherwise. Academic analysis of electoral systems suggests radical right-wing parties are more than twice as successful at gaining seats under PR than under majoritarian systems. Majoritarian systems punish extreme views on both the left and right, explaining why the People’s Party (PPC), led by Maxime Bernier, has been unsuccessful, but equally why Canada’s Communist Party is also ineffective. A PR system would pave the way for the PPC and other extreme parties, as their chances improve with proportionality.
Proponents of electoral reform argue that PR systems often have higher voter turnout and engagement. This too is based on a false premise. Voter turnout is based on many sociodemographic factors, such as age, education, gender etc. Crucially it also depends on the campaign itself. “Change elections” tend to produce higher turnouts. Ballot box questions can also move the vote. Charisma and policy—such as Justin Trudeau in 2015 promising marijuana legalization—proved compelling for first-time voters. To assert that changing the system would automatically result in better participation is wishful thinking.
A pressing concern with changing the electoral system is that it alters election outcomes. PR systems encourage multi-party campaigns, leading to more coalition governments. While proponents argue this leads to more co-operation, it also means less accountability and more government spending. PR systems often don’t result in majority governments, leading to post-election negotiations to form coalitions. These often involve more than two partners, each seeking additional programs and spending for their constituents. This often results in higher debt and deficits. As no single party is held accountable, similar outcomes occur in future elections.
It’s notable that the minority governments formed in Canada’s 2019 and 2021 federal elections increased spending significantly, with the NDP demanding social programs such as national pharmacare and dental care.
Let’s not kid ourselves: proponents of electoral reform don’t want to change the rules just to be fair to voters. They want to change the rules to favour their preferred parties. Electoral reform provides more incentives for single-issue parties and those that are currently unable to compromise to attain seats and influence.
____________________________________________
