Article content continued

When voters feel that their vote will make no difference to the outcome, they are less likely to vote. This is referred to as the “effectiveness” of a vote. A Conservative living in a “safe” Liberal riding is less likely to vote. The low voter turnout over decades in Alberta had a lot to do with the sense that voting made no difference.

On average, countries with some form of Proportional Representation have significantly higher voter turnout than those voting with FPTP, or with the system known as ranked ballots (both are majoritarian, “winner take all” systems). In fact, the vast majority of modern voting systems are based on proportional representation. Of modern democracies, only Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom still vote by “winner take all.”

Why dump First past the post? First, FPTP makes politics nastier. So-called wedge issues are designed to make people vote from fear or anger. Trying to keep your party’s vote solid while using “voter suppression techniques” such as attack ads to reduce another party’s vote is reinforced by FPTP voting.

Second, cooperation is discouraged. The constant fear of strategic voting luring your supporters to vote for another party – to stop a worse choice – has the effect of making parties act like teams in an endless competition. To suggest another party has a good idea could risk bleeding your vote to another.

As compelling as are all these reasons to get rid of our current system, the third reason, the rights argument, trumps them all. Under section 3 of the Charter, every Canadian has the right to vote. And under section 15, we are entitled to equal protection and an equal exercise of our rights. How can a system of voting in which the majority of the votes might not have an impact on the outcome be considered Charter-compliant?