In his recent article for iPolitics, Dougald Lamont — a communications expert and Liberal insider — builds a very compelling narrative against proportional representation out of a framework myths and straw-man arguments. While it’s clear he understands the problems with first-past-the-post (FPTP), he also wants to sell us on another winner-take-all voting system — preferential ballots, the ‘Alternative Vote’ model — which would only offer more of the same.

First, proportional representation is not a system. It is a principle used in a family of systems: that if a party wins 39 per cent of the vote, it should win roughly 39 per cent of the seats — not 54 per cent of the seats and 100 per cent of the power.

In practice, in Canada, it would mean that your vote would count towards electing a representative that you want. And the results would be fair.

Related articles Could an electoral reform cure be worse than the disease?

Compare this to the current situation, where 7 million votes go into the trash and we wait to see what the winner-take-all casino will serve up next – a system where a handful of voters, in a few swing ridings, can decide the fate of a nation.

Proportional representation is a principle that 14 years of public opinion polls show a strong majority of Canadians support.

We’ve now had ten commissions and assemblies on electoral reform in Canada. Every time you bring impartial citizens and experts together to study this issue, they come to the same conclusion: We must add some proportionality to the system to correct the problems with FPTP.

Not a single commission, assembly, group or party in Canada has ever recommended “appointed” MPs as part of a more proportional system, nor will they. This is a straw man argument used to raise fears about making votes count.

It’s the winner-take-all dynamic that prevents sustainable, long-term progress on so many issues that Canadians care about.

So what does Mr. Lamont propose instead of voter equality? More winner-take-all voting. Entrenching winner-take-all politics with the goal of creating a never-ending cycle of one-party, phony majorities is like giving a broken-down old car a new coat of paint. It wouldn’t enhance democracy, correct skewed results, elect more women or check abuses of power.

Look at what’s happening with electoral reform and democratic development around the world. The Electoral Knowledge Network, an impartial body, reports:

Most countries that have changed electoral systems have done so in the direction of more proportionality, either by adding a PR element to a plurality system or by completely replacing their old system with PR. The most common switch has been from a plurality/majority system to a mixed system, and there is not one example of a change in the opposite direction.

“Ranked ballots” are not a system — they are a tool that can be used in winner-take-all and proportional systems. We can incorporate a ranked ballot into a more proportional system for Canada, as Stephane Dion suggests. Or we can incorporate a preferential ballot into a mixed-member proportional system. Or we can apply a preferential ballot to multi-member ridings to create proportional representation — something 58 per cent of British Columbia voters said yes to in 2005.

Do we really want to emulate Australia — one of the few countries in the world that uses the system Mr. Lamont proposes? In the last Australian election, the Greens secured 8.42 per cent of the vote — but failed to win a seat. They achieved more primary votes than the Palmer United Party and the Katter’s Australian Party (KAP) thrown in together, yet the KAP got two seats. Australia continues to flip-flop between right wing and centrist blocs, with the current right wing government undoing the policies of the previous centrist government. It’s this kind of winner-take-all dynamic that prevents sustainable, long-term progress on so many issues that Canadians care about.

And then there’s the narrative about the “evil” of coalition government so successfully crafted by Prime Minister Harper in 2008. As Aaron Wherry has pointed out, even our current winner-take-all system encourages coalition building in minority parliaments.

Germany provides a great example. When Angela Merkel’s conservative party received 42 per cent of the vote, but her expected coalition partner failed to meet the 5 per cent threshold to win seats under their proportional system, she struck a coalition with the left wing social democrats. Those parties agreed to a new minimum wage and new policies on pensions, education and the environment. When politicians need to work together, things get done.

There are many options for moving beyond the winner-take-all system — and we applaud the Liberal party’s commitment to evidence-based policy on electoral reform in the resolution passed overwhelmingly at their last convention. We were delighted to engage the democratic reform critics from the Liberals, NDP and Green caucuses in a candid conversation about achieving a more proportional system on our webinar last week.

We urge all Canadians to consider the body of evidence that already exists from Canada and around the world, and join us in calling for a fairer, more proportional system by 2019.

Politicians are temporary — but the people are permanent. Theirs is the highest form of political authority — the authority to decide not only who governs them, but how. In a democracy, it’s the people who are sovereign.

Kelly Carmichael is the executive director of Fair Vote Canada. @kellycarmichae1

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.