In a recent article appearing in iPolitics and Policy magazine, Jennifer Smith of Dalhousie University’s political science faculty makes the argument that so-called “progressives” would not benefit as much as they’d expect to from a House of Commons elected under a system of proportional representation. Her essay paints all proponents of electoral reform as ‘progressives’ — a label that might make Conservatives in Quebec, Atlantic Canada, the GTA and Vancouver a bit uncomfortable.

Majoritarian systems like first-past-the-post and the ‘alternative vote’ (or ranked ballot) do not discriminate by label or party affiliation; they treat all voters with the same disrespect.

The new Liberal government is to be commended for its commitment to replace our archaic, dysfunctional first-past-the-post voting system with a new electoral system in 2019 — one which matches their promise to “make every vote count”. But if the government is serious about that commitment, the new electoral system must be more proportional.

It’s an ambitious promise which will require a disciplined timeline. But it is a promise that is entirely practical — one which voters expect this government to keep.

Proportional representation (PR) is not a single system. It simply means that, under a PR system, the percentage of MPs elected for a party should closely match the percentage of votes cast for that party. How is that accomplished? By making every vote count.

In a representative democracy, every voter should have power. Last fall, over 500 of Ms. Smith’s academic colleagues, including former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, agreed with that principle.

PR is not about parties at all. It’s about voters. Under a proportional electoral system, every voter is equal. The result is that no party gets more or less MPs than it deserves.

When nine million Canadian voters cast ballots which end up electing no one at all, we have a system based on a winner-take-all principle that passed its “best before” date sometime early in the last century.

“I’ve met and heard from far too many Canadians who are frustrated that they don’t feel like their votes count,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said recently. “They don’t feel like they have a concrete way of making a difference in our electoral process, and I’ve committed to ensuring that we move beyond the first-past-the-post process.”

That commitment to making every vote count should be about standing up for all Canadian voters. Not just Liberals. Not just “progressives”.

In the 2015 federal election, 2,855,332 Conservative voters cast votes which elected no-one — the largest number of any party. In fact, in every election half of all voters are unable to elect a representative. On October 19, 2015, the number of these ineffective votes rose to its highest level ever — with over 9,000,000 voters left in the penalty box.

Perhaps, as Ms. Smith suggested, some Conservative voters do feel well “represented” by their local NDP MPs, or NDP voters by their Conservative MPs. Their staff help constituents fill out forms and tax returns, and send birthday cards.

But most of us would recognize that while those functions are important to some constituents, that’s not what most Canadians base their votes on. They vote to be represented on policy by a local MP who shares their values and will advocate for them in Parliament. From top to bottom, Canadian politics has become hyper-partisan — and Canadians know it doesn’t have to be this way.

When a single party can, with 39 per cent of the vote, pass policies opposed by evidence, experts, public opinion and MPs whose views represent a majority of voters, does that reflect our Canadian values? When a single party can, with 39 per cent of the vote, pass policies opposed by evidence, experts, public opinion and MPs whose views represent a majority of voters, does that reflect our Canadian values?

By calling the distorted results of winner-take-all voting — and its consequences for Canadians — a “misalignment”, Ms. Smith misrepresents the nature of the problem. The consequences of first-past-the-post are not a minor technical accident. They can and do create serious distortions of the processes we value in a democracy.

When a single party can, with 39 per cent of the vote, pass policies opposed by evidence, experts, public opinion and MPs whose views represent a majority of voters, does that reflect our Canadian values?

In 2008, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party achieved almost the same number of votes — but Bloc voters elected 49 MPs and Green Party voters elected zero. That can hardly be described as a “misalignment”.

Ms. Smith is correct when she says that it’s hard to predict future election results under a proportional system because parties will change their approach to politics in response.

Drawing on experience of over 90 Countries and 85 per cent of OECD countries, we know that with proportional representation, parties become accustomed to cooperating and collaborating to develop policy.

Without the lure of a 39 per cent “majority”, the incentives for better behaviour in Parliament and during election campaigns do change.

Parties with the most in common can distinguish themselves from each other more honestly and offer a broader range of policy ideas to the electorate, but are no longer each other’s primary enemy in winner-take-all battles.

More importantly, the behaviour of voters changes when every vote counts. All majoritarian, winner-take-all systems involve a high degree of strategic voting — voting for a party or candidate considered the ‘lesser evil’ in order to stop a particular candidate or party from prevailing.

In Australia, which uses a winner-take-all ranked ballot in single-member districts, parties hand out ‘how to vote’ cards based on ‘preference trading’ deals they make with other parties before the election. False majorities and a high number of wasted votes are a common outcome of any winner-take-all voting system.

With proportional representation, voters can vote for the candidates they sincerely prefer —and almost always end up electing their first choice. Voter turnout under PR averages about 7.5 per cent higher than under other systems. Making every vote count may bring new voters — and voters who have given up on our system — out to the polls.

Ms. Smith is correct when she says that the goal of proportional representation is not to create a permanent, progressive coalition. A look at the long term research into the 85 per cent of OECD countries that use forms of proportional representation shows that PR delivers stable, majority governments which at times lean left and at other times right — just not one-party majority governments.

Decades of research show that not only are proportional governments (left or right) just as stable as those elected under other systems, countries using proportional systems outperform countries using winner-take-all systems on almost every measure of democracy — and produce better environmental outcomes, lower income inequality, more fiscal responsibility and higher scores on the United Nations Human Development Index on quality-of-life. Whether left, right or centre, they ensure representation for everyone and more consistently deliver policies closer to what voters want.

A made-in-Canada PR system can be designed with the values Canadians care about foremost in mind. Values such as fair results, a representative Parliament, greater voter engagement, more collaboration, more accountability, better representation of diversity and voter choice, and stability.

A ranked ballot is a feature which can be built into almost any proportional system — but only PR will make every voter equal.

In October, 63 per cent of Canadians voted for parties that campaigned on platforms calling for making every vote count in 2019. That’s a real mandate.

The Liberal government is about to embark on a consultation process with Canadians and experts to design a voting system that better reflects Canadian values for 2019. We hope all the parties will represent their voters well and help make Canada more democratic. That’s real change —and we’re ready for it.

Anita Nickerson is a coordinator with Fair Vote Canada

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.