I'm referring to how first-past-the-post creates great distortions in how it allocates seats relative to how people voted (i.e. the popular vote).
For example, the Bloc Quebecois and NDP won 32 and 25 seats, respectively in the last election but won 7.63% and 15.98% of the popular vote, respectively.
That means even though more than twice as many Canadians voted NDP than BQ, the NDP won fewer seats.
There are plenty of these examples through the years where all major parties (and the people who voted for them) got short-changed at some point.
For more information about why our electoral system is broken, check-out https://www.fairvote.ca/first-past-the-post-must-go/
For more information about a viable electoral system that the vast majority of the OECD countries use, check-out https://www.fairvote.ca/what-is-proportional-representation/
I'm going to die in this hill: solving Canada's problems has to start with abolishing the first-past-the-post voting system. The electorate's will is being ignored, and politicians have few reasons to keep their promises.
Thing is, the electorate, time and time again, vote for representatives who explicitly tell them at election time that they will not serve the electorate's will, but rather the will of the party that they are a member of. There are no illusions or dishonesty here. We all know going into it that any MP who belongs to a party will always play for their party, not their constituents. This is made known loud and clear before anyone casts their ballot. As such, this idea of yours that the electorate wants their will served doesn't hold water. The electorate's actions clearly show that they don't want their will served.
So what gives you the idea that the electorate will magically start voting for representatives who will try to serve their will if FPTP were to be abolished? Not going to happen. In fact, some of the likely FPTP replacements double down on political parties, codifying their existence, possibly, depending on which implementation wins, removing the ability to elect a representative who will serve your will – requiring representatives to serve a party rather than the electorate.
Canada's problems have to start by selecting representatives who are willing to represent. FPTP is not a hinderance in seeing that happen, if the will is there. Even if the people do want to abolish FPTP in the end, that will not happen before the electorate's will is honoured, and that requires selecting representatives who will work for the electorate rather than a labour union. When we stop electing representatives who flat out tell you that they work for the union rather than the constituents, then we can start talking about how to improve the electoral system. But first things first.
> For example, the Bloc Quebecois and NDP won 32 and 25 seats, respectively in the last election but won 7.63% and 15.98% of the popular vote, respectively.
Yes, the Bloc Quebecois and NDP are labour unions. They represent the workers (MP/MPP/MLA), not the employers (you and I). Why the hell you hire an employee based on their labour union affiliation? That would be insane in any other context.
But, indeed, that's exactly what people do when it comes to hiring for government positions for bizarre reasons... That, however, is not how the Westminster system is meant to function. It is quite explicitly a representational system where each riding has a single representative who represents the single riding and only that riding. Union members working together, against the wishes of the employer, is decidedly against the original intent of the system.
There are reasons why the Westminister system is problematic, but it is not because of how the representative employees are hired. That's just a symptom. The root problem is that the Westminster system flat out doesn't fit with how people want government to function. Changing the electoral system doesn't actually change anything that matters.
Forgive me but this employee/labour analogy seems to be talking a bit past my concerns.
When folks talk about adopting proportional representation in Canada, we're most commonly talking about electing more than one representative per riding. In Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP), one local MP is elected as we currently do, and then multiple additional MPs are elected to make the overall composition of the house proportional to the votes cast. You can read more here: https://www.fairvote.ca/mixed-member-proportional/
There is nothing preventing Westminster systems of parliament from adopting these proportional elections. In fact there are many, many extant examples ranging from Denmark to former colonies like New Zealand.
> Forgive me but this employee/labour analogy seems to be talking a bit past my concerns.
I'm not sure which analogy you refer to. They are literally employees in every sense of the word. There is no analogy – that is straight up what it is.
> then multiple additional MPs are elected to make the overall composition of the house proportional to the votes cast.
You improve the proportion of labour union representation, perhaps, which we have already talked about, but why are we selecting employees based on their labour union membership in the first place? If you hire people at your private sector job, do you elect them based on their labour union affiliation? Or do you elect based on your understanding of how they will represent your organization, selecting the worker who you feel will do the best job?