There’s a reason traditional political strategists argue so fervently to keep the first-past-the-post system.

Yes, it can give them 100% of the power with only 39% of the vote. But that’s not the worst.

More worrisome is the thought the beloved political bastions and battlegrounds created by the first-past-the-post system might be destroyed – rendering useless all the manipulative political strategies they’ve successfully developed to exploit them.

Perhaps half or a third of Canada’s 338 riding are bastions – a riding always won by the same party. A political monopoly. Whether your preferred party always wins or always loses, if you live in a bastion there’s little reason to go out and vote. You already know the outcome. Turnout is the loser.

For each party, voters in a bastion aren’t in play and must be ignored. They aren’t to be considered when developing the party platform. They aren’t the target of communications or advertising. The leader of the party holding it won’t even tour a bastion – journalists would report that as a sign of weakness.

Proportional representation wipes out bastions because it makes every vote count. Everyone – even in what was a bastion – has a reason to vote, and all parties now need to pay attention.

As with our current system, under the proportional electoral system recommended by The Law Commission of Canada the top candidate would be elected for the riding. But the votes cast for runner-up party candidates would also count – toward electing a regional MP. Every vote counts.

A supporter of the party that held the bastion who, last time, didn’t bother to vote can now be encouraged to cast a ballot – it’ll help elect more regional MPs for their preferred party. Those who prefer a party that could never win the bastion also have a reason to turnout – their vote will count toward electing a regional MP of their choice.

That simple shift changes the rules for political strategists. And it’s not a change they like because it ends the manipulative games they’ve mastered.

By destroying bastions, proportional representation brings competitive politics to every riding. Party platforms, communications and tours need to be aimed broadly. To get the undecided to decide. To get switchers to switch. To get every supporter to turn out. Everywhere. That’s not the game strategists have learned to play.

Battlegrounds are the flip side of bastions. These are ridings on which political strategists aim all their policies, communications and resources. In manipulative ways.

A common battleground strategy is micro-targeting – identifying small groups who will switch their vote in exchange for an offer. A foreign policy stance. A pipeline position. A tax deduction. Or a good old pork-barrel infrastructure promise. Battleground micro-targeting turns policy platforms into pandering offers aimed at small groups in small corners of the country, each calculated to win one seat. Strategists love these little fights.

Strategic voting, another common battleground ploy, resolves three-way battles into two-way fights. Supporters of a party are told the likely winner is wicked and they must switch their support to stop the election of pure evil. This game encourages hyper-partisanship and hot buttons. It takes away good policy options.

First-past-the-post is a match of fights in the corners – with little jabs and unseeable hits below the belt. Pity the poor strategist who has to learn to fight out in the open.