Module 9A

Single-Member Plurality (SMP)

  • Definition- In each of 343343 local electoral districts, known as ridings in Canada, voters elect one Member of Parliament (MP).

    • The candidate who receives the most votes wins, even if they don't have a majority ( >50%>50\% ) of the votes. This is often called a "first-past-the-post" system.

  • Practical features- This system uses a simple ballot where citizens typically choose one candidate (A, B, C, or D), making it easy to understand.

    • Vote counting is usually very rapid and inexpensive due to its simplicity.

    • The federal and almost all provincial elections in Canada have historically used SMP.

Critiques of SMP

  • Alan Cairns (1968) - Argued that SMP “hinders a unifying party system” in Canada, a country marked by deep regional differences or cleavages (like Quebec vs. the West).

    • This system tends to reward parties whose support is concentrated geographically in certain areas, while it penalises parties that have more evenly-spread national appeal across the country.

  • Disproportionate outcomes - The number of votes a party receives often does not directly translate to the number of seats they win in Parliament. Parties can win the popular vote (more total votes nationally) yet end up losing the election and forming government.

    • Toy example (3 ridings): If a party wins 55%55\% of votes in one riding but only 49.9%49.9\% in the other two, they could still lose both of those ridings. This means a party could have a majority of votes nationally but end up with a minority of seats in total.

    • Real cases

    • Québec 1998: The Quebec Liberals received more total votes than the Parti Québécois (PQ), but the PQ won more seats and formed the government.

    • Ontario 2003: The Liberals won 46%46\% of the vote but secured 70%70\% of the seats, while the Progressive Conservatives (PCs) won 35%35\% of the vote but only 23%23\% of the seats.

    • 2008 Federal: The Bloc Québécois won 10%10\% of the national vote and 4949 seats, while the NDP won 18%18\% of the vote but only 3737 seats, demonstrating a disproportionate outcome.

  • False majorities & under-representation - The party that forms government often ends up with an oversized group of elected representatives (caucus) compared to their actual popular vote, while opposition parties are smaller than their national support might suggest.

    • This can lead to “majority” governments that actually received support from only a minority of voters (less than 50%50\% of the popular vote), which can result in limited checks and balances on government power.

  • Voter turnout effects - In safe ridings (e.g., Ottawa–Vanier, which has been consistently Liberal for over 100100 years), voters might feel their vote doesn't matter, leading to apathy and lower engagement.

    • Countries that use proportional representation systems (where seats more closely match vote shares) often record higher voter turnout.

Strengths Often Cited

  • Intuitive ballot, direct territorial accountability. Voters find the ballot simple to use. Also, each elected MP is directly responsible to the specific people and area they represent in their riding, which is called direct territorial accountability.

  • Quick, inexpensive counts. The simplicity of the system allows for faster and cheaper tabulation of votes.

  • High bar for tiny or extremist parties to win seats. Because a candidate must win the most votes in an entire riding, it is difficult for very small or extremist parties to gain representation.

  • Majority governments give clear lines of responsibility (though this is partly an illusion when vote share ≠ seat share). When one party holds a majority of seats, it is clear who is in power and who is responsible for government decisions, although their seat count might not reflect their actual popular support.

Alternative Electoral Systems Discussed

  • Single Transferable Vote (STV) - In this system, ridings (electoral districts) elect multiple representatives rather than just one. Voters rank candidates in order of preference (1st1^{st}, 2nd2^{nd}, 3rd3^{rd}…). Votes that are surplus to what a winning candidate needs, or votes for candidates with the lowest support, are then transferred to the voters' next preferred choices until all seats are filled proportionally.

  • Alternative Vote (AV) / Preferential - This system also uses one-member ridings (like SMP), but instead of just marking one choice, voters rank candidates (1st1^{st}, 2nd2^{nd}, 3rd3^{rd}…). If no candidate wins over 50%50\% on the first count, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are transferred to the next preferred candidate on those ballots. This process repeats through instant run-offs until one candidate clears 50%50\%.

  • Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) - Voters receive two ballots: 1) one to vote for a local candidate (similar to SMP), and 2) another to vote for a party list. The list seats are then used to add more representatives from parties based on their overall national or regional vote share, ensuring that the total number of seats a party gets in Parliament closely aligns with their total percentage of the party vote.

    • Example: If the Green Party wins 10%10\% of the national party vote but few or no local ridings, they would receive list top-ups to ensure they get approximately 10%10\% of the total seats in the House of Commons.

Reform Attempts & Why They Fail

  • Referendums - These are direct votes by the electorate on a particular proposal, used in this context to decide on electoral system changes. Examples include Ontario 2007 (MMP), PEI 2005/2019 (MMP), and BC 2005 & 2009 (STV). All of these failed either due to low turnout or specific rules requiring a very high percentage of votes to pass (dual-threshold rules).

  • Politicians’ incentives - Parties often make promises to change the electoral system when they are in third place (like Trudeau in 2015, or the CAQ before 2018 in Quebec) because they are disadvantaged by the current system. However, these promises often fade once they win a majority government and benefit from SMP.

    • Additionally, incumbent members of parliament (backbenchers) already in office often resist reform because they fear losing their seats in a new system, leading to caucus push-back against their own party's reform efforts.

  • Voters’ calculus - New electoral systems can seem complex to average voters ("two votes? rank 2020 candidates?"). Many voters also don’t perceive the disproportionalities of SMP (the "distortions") as major problems.

    • Furthermore, rural areas often benefit from having more seats than their population might strictly warrant (a "seat bonus") under the current system, which leads to strong opposition to electoral reform from these regions.

Election Timing & Dissolution

  • Constitution: The Canadian Constitution stipulates that Parliament must face voters at least every 55 years through an election.

  • The Prime Minister advises the Governor General (the Queen's representative) to dissolve Parliament (end its current session and call an election). An election can also be triggered if the government loses a confidence vote (a vote on a major bill or motion that the government must win to stay in power).

  • Although “fixed-date” statutes (laws setting specific election dates) exist, they are not entrenched (meaning they are not enshrined in the Constitution and can be overruled). Governments can still call early elections when it's strategically advantageous for them.

Ridings: Allocation & Redistribution

  • 1985 Representation Formula - This formula determines how many MPs each province gets in the House of Commons based on population.

    1. The House of Commons usually starts with a base size of 282282 seats.

    2. Each of the 33 territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut) is assigned 11 seat directly, leaving 279279 seats for the provinces.

    3. An electoral quotient (QQ) is calculated by dividing the total population of the provinces by 279279. This represents the average population per federal riding.

    4. The number of seats per province is then determined by dividing the provincial population by QQ and rounding the result.

  • Special rules- Senatorial clause: Ensures that a province will have at least as many MPs as it has senators, protecting smaller provinces.

    • Grandfather clause: Guarantees that no province will have fewer seats than it had in 1985, preventing significant losses for any province.

    • “15%15\% rule”: A province cannot lose more than 15%15\% of its seats in a single readjustment (redistribution of seats).

  • Independent boundary commissions adjust riding lines to reflect communities of interest. These non-partisan commissions redraw the borders of electoral districts to account for population changes and ensure that logical communities are kept together.

Franchise & Candidate Rules

  • Voters: Citizens aged 1818 years or older have the right to vote (this age limit has been in place since 1970).

  • Candidates: To run for election, citizens must be 1818 years or older and meet certain requirements:

    • They must collect at least 100100 electors’ signatures from people eligible to vote in their riding.

    • They must appoint an official agent (who handles financial transactions) and an auditor to oversee their campaign finances.

    • Historically, a $1000\$1000 deposit was required to run, but this was abolished by the courts.

  • Registered party requirements - To be recognized as a political party federally, a group must meet certain criteria:

    • Collect at least 250250 voter signatures on their application.

    • Run a minimum of 11 candidate in each general election.

    • Provide information for their leader, at least 33 officers, an auditor, and a chief agent.

Voter Turnout Patterns

  • Canada lacks compulsory voting (contrast: Australia, Belgium). Unlike some countries, voting in Canada is not mandatory by law.

  • Youth participation lags; modest rebound after early 2000s but still below seniors. Younger voters tend to vote less often than older generations, though participation among youth has seen a slight increase recently.

Party & Campaign Finance

  • Historical arc - Pre-1970: Political parties relied heavily on corporate patronage (donations from large businesses, often influencing policy behind the scenes).

    • 1974 reforms: New laws were introduced requiring public disclosure for donations over $200\$200, making campaign finance more transparent. Tax credits were also introduced to encourage individuals to donate to parties.

    • Sponsorship scandal (early 2000s) → 2003 C-24: A major public scandal involving government funds led to new legislation (Bill C-24) that banned donations from unions and corporations. A per-vote subsidy (public funding for parties based on their vote share in the previous election) was also introduced to compensate for the lost corporate/union donations.

    • 2011–12 Harper govt. phased out the per-vote subsidy. The previous Conservative government gradually eliminated the public funding for parties, making them more reliant on individual donations again.

  • Current individual limits (2025 numbers) - There are limits on how much an individual can donate:

    • $1,750\$1,750 annually to each federal party.

    • $1,750\$1,750 total to that party’s electoral district associations (EDAs) (local party organizations) plus nomination contestants (individuals seeking to become a party's candidate).

    • $1,750\$1,750 to leadership contestants (individuals running to be a party leader).

    • $1,750\$1,750 to each independent candidate (not affiliated with a registered party).

    • For donations over $200\$200, the donor’s name and the amount donated are published publicly.

  • Tax credits - Donations to political parties offer tax benefits:

    • The first $400\$400 donated earns a 75 % tax credit.

    • Donations between $400\$400 and $750\$750 receive a 50 % credit.

    • Donations over $750\$750 receive a 33 % credit (with a maximum annual credit of $650\$650).

  • Reimbursements - Parties and candidates can get some of their election expenses back from the public:

    • Parties: If a party's national vote share is at least 2%2\% nationally or 5%5\% in the ridings it contested, it gets 50%50\% of its eligible expenses (expenses permitted under election law) refunded.

    • Candidates: If a candidate gets at least 10%10\% of the votes in their riding, they receive a refund of 50%50\% of their spending limit. This rises to 60%60\% if they spent at least 30%30\% of their allowed limit.

Explaining How Canadians Vote

Block Recursive Model

  • This is a model used by political scientists to explain the sequential factors that influence how people vote.

  • Causal chain: It suggests that there's a progression of influences: Social background → Political orientations → Immediate attitudes/performance → Vote. This means social factors influence how you see politics, which then influences your current views, and finally, your vote.

1 Social-Background Anchors

  • These are long-standing personal characteristics that tend to influence political views.

  • Region / Place - People from the West and rural Canada tend to vote Conservative, while those in urban centers more often support the NDP or Liberal parties.

  • Religion - Historically, there was a strong link between Catholics and the Liberal Party (due to historical factors like Irish and French-Canadian anti-imperial sentiment).

    • Today: The degree of religiosity (how often someone attends religious services) is a better predictor: higher church attendance often correlates with supporting Conservative parties, while more secular voters tend to lean left.

  • Language - French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec and English-speaking Canadians in Quebec often favor the Liberal Party, partly due to its perceived role in protecting bilingualism.

  • Immigration & Race - Canadians who are racialized or immigrants often lean towards the Liberal Party, partly due to perceptions that the party is more open to diversity and immigration.

  • Gender - A modern “gender gap” exists, where women are generally less likely to choose Conservative parties than men.

  • Class - This is a weaker predictor of voting behavior in Canada compared to Europe, largely due to limited class consciousness (people in Canada are generally less likely to strongly identify with a specific social class and its associated political interests).

2 Ideological & Partisan Orientations

  • Left–Right self-placement fuzzy but partisan sorting increasing; parties less brokerage-styled. While Canadians may not perfectly place themselves on a simple left-right political spectrum, people are increasingly aligning their ideology with a specific political party. Canadian parties traditionally tried to appeal to a broad range of voters across regions and ideologies (that is, they were brokerage-styled), but they are becoming more distinct in their ideological platforms.

  • Partisanship - Positive: A long-standing emotional attachment or party identification (party ID) still plays a role in how people vote.

    • Negative partisanship (voting specifically to prevent a disliked party from winning, rather than actively supporting a preferred one) is on the rise.

3 Short-Term Influences

  • These are more immediate factors that can sway voters in a specific election.

  • Economic Voting - When the economy is performing poorly, voters tend to punish incumbent governments (those currently in power) by voting them out. However, a good economy doesn't always guarantee a reward for the incumbents.

    • Voters' evaluations of the economy are usually sociotropic (based on the national economy as a whole) rather than pocketbook (based on their personal financial situation).

  • Issue Voting - Voters with strong feelings about a single issue (like healthcare, Quebec's status in Canada, or LGBTQ+ rights) can be swayed to vote for a party that aligns with their stance, affecting approximately 10%10\% of the electorate.

  • Leadership Images - The personal likability and perceived competence of party leaders are one of the strongest predictors of how people vote, even in Canada's non-presidential system (where the leader is not directly elected by the public).

    • Anecdote: The example of a Quebec viewer switching their support to the NDP after being positively impressed by Jack Layton on TV highlights the importance of leader image.

  • Local Candidate Quality - While less impactful than national factors, the perceived quality and effectiveness of the local candidate in a riding can matter for about 4%4\% to 8%8\% of voters and can tip the scales in about 10%10\% of ridings.

  • Strategic Voting - This occurs when voters choose a candidate who is not their first preference but is seen as the most viable option to block their least-preferred option from winning. This is present but modest in Canada and more common among educated, politically attentive electors.

Ethical & Practical Implications

  • Representation distortion raises legitimacy questions. The fact that the SMP system can lead to disproportionate representation (where seat count doesn't match popular vote) can raise legitimacy questions about whether the government truly represents the will of the people.

  • Rural over-representation entrenched; reform debates invariably pit urban proportionality vs rural clout. The SMP system has historically favored rural areas by giving them more representation per capita. Debates about electoral reform often become a conflict between the desire for proportionality (seats matching votes) in urban areas and the entrenched clout (influence/power) of rural regions.

  • Financing rules aim to curb undue influence yet must balance free speech & party vitality. Campaign finance rules are designed to prevent wealthy donors or corporations from having too much influence over politics. However, these rules must also find a balance that protects free speech (the right to donate and express political support) and ensures party vitality (that parties have enough resources to effectively compete and function).

Concept Links & Real-World Relevance

  • SMP logic underpins Westminster accountability but collides with Canada’s multi-regional fabric. The Westminster parliamentary system (which Canada inherited from Britain) emphasizes clear accountability through single-member districts and majority governments. However, this system often struggles to reflect the diverse and multi-regional fabric of Canada, with its distinct provincial and regional identities.

  • Voter-leader focus explains why parties invest heavily in branding leaders. The strong influence of leader images on voter behavior explains why Canadian political parties spend significant resources on building and promoting the public brand of their leaders.

  • Rising negative partisanship parallels U.S. polarisation studies; cautions about civic cohesion. The increase in negative partisanship in Canada is similar to trends seen in the U.S. and raises concerns about civic cohesion (the sense of unity and shared identity within a society) as voters become more defined by who they oppose.